October 2021 Sanction Guidelines

Sanction Guidelines

October 2021

Table of Contents

© 2021. FINRA. All rights reserved. March 2019 version of the Sanction Guidelines.

Overview 1

General Principles Applicable to All Sanction Determinations 2

Principal Considerations in Determining Sanctions 7

Applicability 8

Technical Matters 9

I. ActivityAwayFromAssociatedPerson’sMemberFirm 12

II. Arbitration 17

III. DistributionsofSecurities 19

IV. FinancialandOperationalPractices 25

V. ImpedingRegulatoryInvestigations 31

VI. ImproperUseofFunds/Forgery 35

VII. QualificationandMembership 38

VIII.QualityofMarkets 46

IX. Reporting/ProvisionofInformation 70

X. SalesPractices 77

XI. Supervision 101

Index 110

1 INDEXTOC

The regulatory mission of FINRA is to protect investors and strengthen market integrity through vigorous, even-handed and cost-effective self-regulation. FINRA embraces self-regulation as the most effective means of infusing a balance of industry and non-industry expertise into the regulatory process. FINRA believes that an important facet of its regulatory function is the building of public confidence in the financial markets. As part of FINRA’s regulatory mission, it must stand ready to discipline member firms and their associated persons by imposing sanctions when necessary and appropriate to protect investors, other member firms and associated persons, and to promote the public interest.

The National Adjudicatory Council (NAC), formerly the National Business Conduct Committee, has developed the FINRA Sanction Guidelines for use by the various bodies adjudicating disciplinary decisions, including Hearing Panels and the NAC itself (collectively, the Adjudicators), in determining appropriate remedial sanctions. FINRA has published the FINRA Sanction Guidelines so that members, associated persons and their counsel may become more familiar with the types of disciplinary sanctions that may be applicable to various violations. FINRA staff and respondents also may use these guidelines in crafting settlements, acknowledging the broadly recognized principle that settled cases generally result in lower sanctions than fully litigated cases to provide incentives to settle.

Overview

These guidelines do not prescribe fixed sanctions for particular violations. Rather, they provide direction for Adjudicators in imposing sanctions consistently and fairly. The guidelines recommend ranges for sanctions and suggest factors that Adjudicators may consider in determining, for each case, where within the range the sanctions should fall or whether sanctions should be above or below the recommended range. These guidelines are not intended to be absolute. Based on the facts and circumstances presented in each case, Adjudicators may impose sanctions that fall outside the ranges recommended and may consider aggravating and mitigating factors in addition to those listed in these guidelines.

These guidelines address some typical securities-industry violations. For violations that are not addressed specifically, Adjudicators are encouraged to look to the guidelines for analogous violations.

In order to promote consistency and uniformity in the application of these guidelines, the NAC has outlined certain General Principles Applicable to All Sanction Determinations that should be considered in connection with the imposition of sanctions in all cases. Also included is a list of Principal Considerations in Determining Sanctions, which enumerates generic factors for consideration in all cases. Also, a number of guidelines identify potential principal considerations that are specific to the described violation.

2 INDEXTOC

1. Disciplinary sanctions should be designed to protect the investing public by deterring misconduct and upholding high standards of business conduct.

The purpose of FINRA’s disciplinary process is to protect the investing public, support and improve the overall business standards in the securities industry, and decrease the likelihood of recurrence of misconduct by the disciplined respondent. Toward this end, Adjudicators should design sanctions that are meaningful and significant enough to prevent and discourage future misconduct by a respondent and deter others from engaging in similar misconduct.

Sanctions should be more than a cost of doing business. Sanctions should be a meaningful deterrent and reflect the seriousness of the misconduct at issue. To meet this standard, certain cases may necessitate the imposition of sanctions in excess of the upper sanction guideline. For example, when the violations at issue in a particular case have widespread impact, result in significant ill-gotten gains, or result from reckless or intentional actions, Adjudicators should assess sanctions that exceed the recommended range of the guidelines.1

Finally, as Adjudicators apply these principles and tailor sanctions, Adjudicators should consider a firm’s size with a view toward ensuring that the sanctions imposed are remedial and designed to deter future misconduct, but are not punitive. Factors to consider in connection with assessing a firm’s size are: the financial resources of the firm; the nature of the firm’s business; the number of individuals associated with the firm; and the level of trading activity at the firm. This list is included for illustrative purposes and is not exhaustive. Other factors also may be considered in connection with assessing firm size.2

1. See, e.g., Dep’t of Enforcement v. Murray, Complaint No. 2008016437801, 2012 FINRA Discip. LEXIS 64, at *31 (FINRA OHO Oct. 25, 2012) (finding that respondent’s disregard of his supervisory duties supported sanctions above the range recommended by the Sanction Guidelines), aff’d, 2013 FINRA Discip. LEXIS 33, at *5 (FINRA NAC Dec. 17, 2013).

2. Adjudicators may consider a firm’s small size in connection with the imposition of sanctions with respect to rule violations involving negligence. With respect to violations involving fraudulent, willful or reckless misconduct, Adjudicators should consider whether, given the totality of the circumstances involved, it is appropriate to consider a firm’s small size and may determine that, given the egregious nature of the fraudulent activity, firm size will not be considered in connection with sanctions.

General Principles Applicable to All Sanction Determinations

2. Disciplinary sanctions should be more severe for recidivists. An important objective of the disciplinary process is to deter and prevent future misconduct by imposing progressively escalating sanctions on recidivists beyond those outlined in these guidelines, up to and including barring associated persons and expelling firms. Sanctions imposed on recidivists should be more severe because a recidivist, by definition, already has demonstrated a failure to comply with FINRA’s rules or the securities laws. The imposition of more severe sanctions emphasizes the need for corrective action after a violation has occurred, discourages future misconduct by the same respondent, and deters others from engaging in similar misconduct.

Adjudicators should always consider a respondent’s relevant disciplinary history in determining sanctions and should ordinarily impose progressively escalating sanctions on recidivists. With respect to individual respondents, adjudicators should consider Disciplinary and Arbitration History.

Consideration of Past Actions by Regulators, Arbitration Awards and Arbitration Settlements

“Disciplinary and Arbitration History” is defined as disciplinary history by regulators, and arbitration awards and arbitration settlements resulting from disputes between a customer and the respondent, including those when the respondent is the subject of an arbitration claim that only names a FINRA member firm. In connection with a disciplinary action against an individual respondent, adjudicators are to consider the respondent’s Disciplinary and Arbitration History. Pending arbitrations are not Disciplinary and Arbitration History.

3 INDEXTOC

Adjudicators should consider imposing more severe sanctions when an individual respondent’s Disciplinary and Arbitration History:

(a) includes significant past misconduct that is similar to the misconduct at issue; or

(b) shows a pattern of causing investor harm, damaging market integrity, or disregarding regulatory requirements.

Pattern

Adjudicators should draw on their experience and judgment when evaluating if a respondent’s Disciplinary and Arbitration History establishes a pattern. In addressing whether disciplinary and arbitration matters establish a pattern, the parties may focus on the nature, severity, and frequency of the matters. Factors that weigh against finding a pattern are the length of time between events, the isolated nature of an event, or other extenuating circumstances.3

When adjudicators consider an arbitration award or arbitration settlement, they should rely on the CRD description of the amount of the award or settlement. The parties are precluded from challenging the arbitration award or contesting the CRD description of arbitration settlements.

3. Adjudicators should tailor sanctions to respond to the misconduct at issue. Sanctions in disciplinary proceedings are intended to be remedial and to prevent the recurrence of misconduct. Adjudicators therefore should impose sanctions tailored to address the misconduct involved in each particular case. Section 15A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and FINRA Rule 8310 provide

that FINRA may enforce compliance with its rules by: limitation or modification of a respondent’s business activities, functions and operations; fine; censure; suspension (of an individual from functioning in any or all capacities, or of a firm from engaging in any or all activities or functions, for a defined period or contingent on the performance of a particular act); bar (permanent expulsion of an individual from associating with a firm in any or all capacities); expulsion (of a firm from FINRA membership and, consequently, from the securities industry); or any other fitting sanction.

To address the misconduct effectively in any given case, Adjudicators may design sanctions other than those specified in these guidelines. For example, to achieve deterrence and remediate misconduct, Adjudicators may impose sanctions that: (a) require a respondent firm to retain a qualified independent consultant to design and/or implement procedures for improved future compliance with regulatory requirements; (b) suspend or bar a respondent firm from engaging in a particular line of business; (c) require an individual or member firm respondent, prior to conducting future business, to disclose certain information to new and/or existing clients, including disclosure of disciplinary history; (d) require a respondent firm to implement heightened supervision of certain individuals or departments in the firm; (e) require an individual or member firm respondent to obtain a FINRA staff letter stating that a proposed communication with the public is consistent with FINRA standards prior to disseminating that communication to the public; (f) limit the number of securities in which a respondent firm may make a market; (g) limit the activities of a respondent firm; or (h) require a respondent firm to institute tape recording

3. Separately, if a respondent is seeking to expunge customer dispute information from CRD pursuant to FINRA Rule 12805 that reflects an arbitration award or arbitration settlement and that request is pending, or a respondent has petitioned a court of competent jurisdiction to confirm an arbitration award containing expungement relief pursuant to FINRA Rule 2080 and the court has not yet issued an order confirming the arbitration award, adjudicators may consider these additional facts in evaluating if a pattern exists.

4 INDEXTOC

procedures. This list is illustrative, not exhaustive, and is included to provide examples of the types of sanctions that Adjudicators may design to address specific misconduct and to achieve deterrence. Adjudicators may craft other sanctions specifically designed to prevent the recurrence of misconduct.

The recommended ranges in these guidelines are not absolute. The guidelines suggest, but do not mandate, the range and types of sanctions to be applied. Depending on the facts and circumstances of a case, Adjudicators may determine that no remedial purpose is served by imposing a sanction within the range recommended in the applicable guideline; i.e., that a sanction below the recommended range, or no sanction at all, is appropriate. Conversely, Adjudicators may determine that egregious misconduct requires the imposition of sanctions above or otherwise outside of a recommended range. For instance, in an egregious case, Adjudicators may consider barring an individual respondent and/or expelling a respondent member firm, regardless of whether the individual guidelines applicable to the case recommend a bar and/or expulsion or other less severe sanctions. Adjudicators must always exercise judgment and discretion and consider appropriate aggravating and mitigating factors in determining remedial sanctions in each case. In addition, whether the sanctions are within or outside of the recommended range, Adjudicators must identify the basis for the sanctions imposed.

4. Aggregation or “batching” of violations may be appropriate for purposes of determining sanctions in disciplinary proceedings. The range of monetary sanctions in each case may be applied in the aggregate for similar types of violations rather than per individual violation. For example, it may be appropriate to aggregate similar

violations if: (a) the violative conduct was unintentional or negligent (i.e., did not involve manipulative, fraudulent or deceptive intent); (b) the conduct did not result in injury to public investors or, in cases involving injury to the public, if restitution was made; or (c) the violations resulted from a single systemic problem or cause that has been corrected.

Depending on the facts and circumstances of a case, however, multiple violations may be treated individually such that a sanction is imposed for each violation. In addition, numerous, similar violations may warrant higher sanctions, since the existence of multiple violations may be treated as an aggravating factor.

5. Where appropriate to remediate misconduct, Adjudicators should order restitution and/or rescission. Restitution is a traditional remedy used to restore the status quo ante where a victim otherwise would unjustly suffer loss. Adjudicators may determine that restitution is an appropriate sanction where necessary to remediate misconduct. Adjudicators may order restitution when an identifiable person, member firm or other party has suffered a quantifiable loss proximately caused by a respondent’s misconduct.4

Adjudicators should calculate orders of restitution based on the actual amount of the loss sustained by a person, member firm or other party, as demonstrated by the evidence. Orders of restitution may exceed the amount of the respondent’s ill-gotten gain. Restitution orders must include a description of the Adjudicator’s method of calculation.

When a member firm has compensated a customer or other party for losses caused by an individual respondent’s misconduct, Adjudicators may order that the individual respondent pay restitution to the firm.

4. Other avenues, such as arbitration, are available to injured customers as a means to redress grievances.

5 INDEXTOC

Where appropriate, Adjudicators may order that a respondent offer rescission to an injured party.

6. To remediate misconduct, Adjudicators should consider a respondent’s ill-gotten gain when determining an appropriate remedy. In cases in which the record demonstrates that the respondent obtained a financial benefit4 from his or her misconduct, where appropriate to remediate misconduct, Adjudicators may require the disgorgement of such ill-gotten gain by ordering disgorgement of some or all of the financial benefit derived, directly or indirectly.5 In appropriate cases, Adjudicators may order that the respondent’s ill-gotten gain be disgorged and that the financial benefit, directly and indirectly, derived by the respondent be used to redress harms suffered by customers. In cases in which the respondent’s ill-gotten gain is ordered to be disgorged to FINRA, and FINRA collects the full amount of the disgorgement order, FINRA’s routine practice is to contribute the amount collected to the FINRA Investor Education Foundation.

7. Where appropriate, Adjudicators should consider sanctions previously imposed by other regulators or previous corrective action imposed by a firm on an individual respondent based on the same conduct. A final action by another regulator against an individual respondent for the same conduct is a potentially mitigating circumstance. When Adjudicators consider a respondent’s claim of sanctions imposed by another regulator, the respondent must show that the conduct at issue before the other regulator was essentially identical and that any fine has already been fully paid, any suspension has been fully served, and any other sanction has been satisfactorily completed. When another regulator’s sanction applies to misconduct that is not substantially similar to violations found by

5. “Financial benefit” includes any commissions, concessions, revenues, profits, gains, compensation, income, fees, other remuneration, or other benefits the respondent received, directly or indirectly, as a result of the misconduct.

6. Certain guidelines specifically recommend that Adjudicators consider ordering disgorgement in addition to a fine. These guidelines are singled out because they involve violations in which financial benefit occurs most frequently. These specific references should not be read to imply that it is less

FINRA, Adjudicators should accord commensurately less mitigative weight, if any, based on their assessment of the extent of the overlap between the two cases.

For an individual respondent, Adjudicators should acknowledge firms that address an individual’s misconduct by taking corrective action. A firm-imposed fine or suspension is most comparable to FINRA-imposed sanctions when FINRA’s sanctions would have also included a fine or suspension, and Adjudicators should consider according some mitigative weight where these firm-imposed sanctions have already been fully satisfied by a respondent. With regard to a firm’s prior termination of the respondent’s employment based on the same conduct at issue in a subsequent FINRA disciplinary proceeding, Adjudicators should consider whether a respondent has demonstrated that the termination qualifies for any mitigative value, keeping in mind the goals of investor protection and maintaining high standards of business conduct. Among other things, the respondent has the burden to prove that a firm’s termination of the respondent’s employment has materially reduced the likelihood of misconduct in the future. In cases where a respondent’s misconduct is serious, Adjudicators may find—even considering a firm’s prior termination of the respondent’s employment for the same misconduct at issue—that there is no guarantee of changed behavior and therefore may impose the sanction of a bar.6 FINRA has determined that how long a respondent takes to regain employment, loss of salary, and other impacts of an employment termination are merely collateral consequences of being terminated and should not be considered as mitigating by Adjudicators.7

important or desirable to order disgorgement of ill-gotten gain in other instances. The concept of ordering disgorgement of ill-gotten gain is important and, if appropriate to remediate misconduct, may be considered in all cases whether or not the concept is specifically referenced in the applicable guideline.

7. See Denise M. Olson, Exchange Act Release No. 75837 (Sept. 3, 2015).

6 INDEXTOC

8. Where appropriate, Adjudicators should require a respondent to requalify in any or all capacities. The remedial purpose of disciplinary sanctions may be served by requiring an individual respondent to requalify by examination as a condition of continued employment in the securities industry. Such a sanction may be imposed when Adjudicators find that a respondent’s actions have demonstrated a lack of knowledge or familiarity with the rules and laws governing the securities industry.

9. When raised by a respondent, Adjudicators are required to consider ability to pay in connection with the imposition, reduction or waiver of a fine or restitution. Adjudicators are required to consider a respondent’s bona fide inability to pay when imposing a fine or ordering restitution. The burden is on the respondent to raise the issue of inability to pay and to provide evidence thereof.8 If a respondent does not raise the issue of inability to pay during the initial consideration of a matter before “trial-level” Adjudicators, Adjudicators consider ing the matter on appeal generally will presume the issue of inability to pay to have been waived (unless the inability to pay is alleged to have resulted from a subsequent change in circumstances). Adjudicators should require respondents who raise the issue of inability to pay to document their financial status through the use of standard documents that FINRA staff can provide. Proof of inability to pay need not result in a reduction or waiver of a fine, restitution or disgorgement order, but could instead result in the imposition of an installment payment plan or another alternate payment option. In cases in which Adjudicators modify a monetary sanction based on a bona fide inability to pay,

8. See Kent M. Houston, Exchange Act Release No. 71584 (Feb. 20, 2014).

9. See In re Toney L. Reed, Exchange Act Rel. No. 37572 (August 14, 1996), wherein the Securities and Exchange Commission directed FINRA to consider financial ability to pay when ordering restitution. In these guidelines, the NAC has explained its understanding of the Commission’s directives to FINRA based on the Reed decision and other Commission decisions.

the written decision should so indicate. Although Adjudicators must consider a respondent’s bona fide inability to pay when the issue is raised by a respondent, monetary sanctions imposed on member firms need not be related to or limited by the firm’s required minimum net capital.

7 INDEXTOC

1. An individual respondent’s Disciplinary and Arbitration History, or a respondent firm’s relevant disciplinary history (see General Principle No. 2).

2. Whether an individual or member firm respondent accepted responsibility for and acknowledged the misconduct to his or her employer (in the case of an individual) or a regulator prior to detection and intervention by the firm (in the case of an individual) or a regulator.

3. Whether an individual or member firm respondent voluntarily employed subsequent corrective measures, prior to detection or intervention by the firm (in the case of an individual) or by a regulator, to revise general and/or specific procedures to avoid recurrence of misconduct.

Principal Considerations in Determining Sanctions

Thefollowinglistoffactorsshouldbeconsideredinconjunctionwiththeimpositionofsanctionswithrespecttoallviolations.Individualguidelinesmaylistadditionalviolation-specificfactors.

Althoughmanyofthegeneralandviolation-specificconsiderations,whentheyapplyinthecaseathand,havethepotentialtobeeitheraggravatingormitigating,someconsiderationshavethepotentialtobeonlyaggravatingoronlymitigating.Forinstance,thepresenceofcertainfactorsmaybeaggravating,buttheirabsencedoesnotdrawaninferenceofmitigation.1Therelevancyandcharacterizationofafactordependsonthefactsandcircumstancesofacaseandthetypeofviolation.Thislistisillustrative,notexhaustive;asappropriate,Adjudicatorsshouldconsidercase-specificfactorsinadditiontothoselistedhereandintheindividualguidelines.

1. See, e.g., Rooms v. SEC, 444 F.3d 1208, 1214-15 (10th Cir. 2006) (explaining that while the existence of a disciplinary history is an aggravating factor when determining the appropriate sanction, its absence is not mitigating).

4. Whether the respondent voluntarily and reasonably attempted, prior to detection and intervention, to pay restitution or otherwise remedy the misconduct.

5. Whether, at the time of the violation, the respondent member firm had developed reasonable supervisory, operational and/or technical procedures or controls that were properly implemented.

6. Whether, at the time of the violation, the respondent member firm had developed adequate training and educational initiatives.

7. Whether the respondent demonstrated reasonable reliance on competent legal or accounting advice.

8. Whether the respondent engaged in numerous acts and/or a pattern of misconduct.

9. Whether the respondent engaged in the misconduct over an extended period of time.

10. Whether the respondent attempted to conceal his or her misconduct or to lull into inactivity, mislead, deceive or intimidate a customer, regulatory authorities or, in the case of an individual respondent, the member firm with which he or she is/was associated.

11. With respect to other parties, including the investing public, the member firm with which an individual respondent is associated, and/or other market participants, (a) whether the respondent’s misconduct resulted directly or indirectly in injury to such other parties, and (b) the nature and extent of the injury.

8 INDEXTOC

12. Whether the respondent provided substantial assistance to FINRA in its examination and/or investigation of the underlying misconduct, or whether the respondent attempted to delay FINRA’s investigation, to conceal information from FINRA, or to provide inaccurate or misleading testimony or documentary information to FINRA.

13. Whether the respondent’s misconduct was the result of an intentional act, recklessness or negligence.

14. Whether the respondent engaged in the misconduct at issue notwithstanding prior warnings from FINRA, another regulator or a supervisor (in the case of an individual respondent) that the conduct violated FINRA rules or applicable securities laws or regulations.

15. Whether the respondent member firm can demonstrate that the misconduct at issue was aberrant or not otherwise reflective of the firm’s historical compliance record.

16. Whether the respondent’s misconduct resulted in the potential for the respondent’s monetary or other gain.

17. The number, size and character of the transactions at issue.

18. The level of sophistication of the injured or affected customer.

19. Whether the respondent exercised undue influence over the customer or the customer had a mental or physical impairment that renders the person unable to protect his or her own interests.

20. Whether the customer is age 65 or older.

These guidelines supersede prior editions of the FINRA Sanction Guidelines, whether published in a booklet or discussed in FINRA Regulatory Notices (formerly NASD Notices to Members). These guidelines are effective as of the date of publication, and apply to all disciplinary matters, including pending matters. FINRA may, from time to time, amend these guidelines and announce the amendments in a Regulatory Notice or post the changes on FINRA’s website (www.finra.org). Additionally, the NAC may, on occasion, specifically amend a particular guideline through issuance of a disciplinary decision. Amendments accomplished through the NAC decision-making process or announced via Regulatory Notices or on the FINRA website should be treated like other amendments to these guidelines, even before publication of a revised edition of the FINRA Sanction Guidelines. Interested parties are advised to check FINRA’s website carefully to ensure that they are employing the most current version of these guidelines.

Applicability

9 INDEXTOC

Calculation of days of suspension. When imposing suspensions, Adjudicators should consult the suspension range listed in the specific guideline applicable to the violation to determine whether the length of the suspension should be measured in business days or calendar days. When imposing a suspension that is measured in days, Adjudicators should specify business or calendar days.

Censures. These guidelines do not specifically recommend whether or not Adjudicators should impose censures under any of the individual sanction guidelines for particular violations. In the following two instances, however, Adjudicators generally should not impose censures: 1) in cases in which the total monetary sanction (fines, disgorgement, and restitution) is $5,000 or less and 2) in cases in which an Adjudicator imposes a bar, expulsion or suspension. Adjudicators should impose censures in cases in which fines above $5,000 are reduced or eliminated due to a respondent’s inability to pay or bankruptcy. Adjudicators also may impose censures in cases in which this policy would suggest no censure if the Adjudicator determines that extraordinary circumstances exist.1

Technical Matters

Change in terminology; “actions” replaces “violations.” Many of the guidelines recommend progressively escalating monetary sanctions for second and subsequent disciplinary “actions.” The term “actions” is used to acknowledge that every violation of a rule will not necessarily rise to the level of a formal disciplinary action by FINRA, and also to reflect that, as discussed herein, multiple violations may be aggregated or “batched” into one “action” (see General Principle no. 4).

An “action” means a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (AWC), a settled case or a fully litigated case. FINRA Regulation staff-issued Cautionary Action Letters and staff interviews are informal actions that are not included for purposes of the FINRA Sanction Guidelines in the term “action.”

Fines. Fines may be imposed individually as to each respondent in a case, or jointly and severally as to two or more respondents.

1. Interested parties are directed to NASD Notice to Members 99-91 (November 1999) for additional information on FINRA’s Censure Policy.

10 INDEXTOC

Monetary sanctions–Imposition and collection of monetary sanctions. FINRA has identified the circumstances under which Adjudicators generally will impose and FINRA generally will collect monetary sanctions. In that the overriding purpose of all disciplinary sanctions is to remedy misconduct, deter future misconduct and protect the investing public, Adjudicators may exercise their discretion in applying FINRA’s policy on the imposition and collection of monetary sanctions as necessary to achieve FINRA’s regulatory purposes.2

0 Adjudicators generally should not impose a fine if an individual is barred and there is no customer loss.

0 Adjudicators generally should not impose a fine if an individual is barred and the Adjudicator has ordered restitution or disgorgement of ill-gotten gains as appropriate to remediate the misconduct.

0 Nevertheless, Adjudicators generally should impose a fine and require payment of restitution and disgorgement even if an individual is barred in all sales practice cases if:

• the case involves widespread, significant and identifiable customer harm; or

• the respondent has retained substantial ill-gotten gains.

0 In all cases, Adjudicators may exercise their discretion and, if a bar is imposed, refrain from imposing a fine, but require proof of payment of an order of restitution when a respondent files an application for re-entry into the securities industry.3 Adjudicators also may, in their discretion, impose a suspension and a fine, but require proof of payment of the fine when the respondent re-enters the securities industry. In this regard, Adjudicators should consider the following factors:

• whether the respondent is suspended or otherwise not in the securities industry when the sanction is imposed; and

• the number of customers harmed.

2. Interested parties are directed to NASD Notice to Members 99-86 (October 1999) for additional information on FINRA’s Monetary Sanctions Policy.

3. Adjudicators have the discretion to impose post-judgment interest on restitution orders.

11 INDEXTOC

Monetary sanctions—payment of monetary sanctions. Respondents may be permitted to pay fines and costs through an installment payment plan. Installment payment plans generally will be limited to two years (although in extraordinary cases, installment payment plans may be extended to not more than five years). Respondents who are allowed to utilize an installment payment plan will be required to execute promissory notes that track the installment payment plan.

Organization. These guidelines are organized into 11 subject-matter categories and arranged alphabetically by name in each category. In addition, the index lists all the guidelines alphabetically by name.

Restitution—Payment of interest. When ordering restitution, Adjudicators may consider requiring the payment of interest on the base amount. Generally, interest runs from the date(s) of the violative conduct and should be calculated at the rate established for the underpayment of federal income tax in Section 6621 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. Section 6621(a)(2). If appropriate, Adjudicators may order payment to a state escheat fund of any amount that a respondent is not able to pay in restitution because he or she is unable, after reasonable and documented efforts, to locate a customer or other party to whom payment is owed.

Suspensions, bars and expulsions. These guidelines recommend suspensions that do not exceed two years. This upper limit is recommended because of the NAC’s sense that, absent extra ordinary circumstances, any misconduct so serious as to merit a suspension of more than two years probably should warrant a bar (of an individual) or expulsion (of a member firm) from the securities industry. Notwithstanding the NAC’s recommendation in these guidelines to impose suspensions that do not exceed two years, under FINRA’s rules, an Adjudicator may suspend the membership of a member or the registration of a person associated with a member for a definite period that may exceed two years or for an indefinite period with a termination contingent on the performance of a particular act.

It should be noted that an individual who is barred from associating with a member firm in any capacity generally may not re-enter the industry. Although a barred individual may seek special permission to re-enter the industry via FINRA’s eligibility process, to date, the NAC has disfavored applications for re-entry.4

4. In Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34720 (September 26, 1994), Securities and Exchange Commission staff indicated in a letter to various self-regulatory organizations, including FINRA, that “[h]enceforth, imposition of an unqualified bar evidences the Commission’s conclusion that the public interest is served by permanently excluding the barred person from the securities industry. Accordingly, absent extraordinary circumstances, a person subject to an unqualified bar will be unable to establish that it is in the public interest to permit reentry to the securities industry.”

12

I. Activity Away From Associated Person’s Member Firm

• Outside Business Activities—Failure to Comply With Rule Requirements

• Selling Away (Private Securities Transactions)

• Transactions for or by Associated Persons—Failure to Comply With Rule Requirements

13 TOC INDEX

1. As set forth in General Principle No. 6, Adjudicators may also order disgorgement.

Outside Business Activities—FailuretoComplyWithRuleRequirementsFINRARules2010and3270

MonetarySanction

Fine of $2,500 to $77,000.1

Suspension,BarorOtherSanctions

Consider suspending the respondent in any or all capacities for a period of 10 business days to three months.

Where the outside business activities involve aggravating factors, consider a longer suspension of up to one year.

Where aggravating factors predominate, consider a longer suspension (of up to two years) or a bar.

PrincipalConsiderationsinDeterminingSanctions

See Principal Considerations in Introductory Section

1. Whether the outside activity involved customers of the firm.

2. Whether the outside activity resulted directly or indirectly in injury to other parties, including the investing public, and, if so, the nature and extent of the injury.

3. The duration of the outside activity, the number of customers and the dollar volume of sales.

4. Whether the respondent’s marketing and sale of the product or service could have created the impression that the employer (member firm) had approved the product or service.

5. Whether the respondent misled his or her employer member firm about the existence of the outside activity or otherwise concealed the activity from the firm.

6. The importance of the role played by the respondent in the outside business activity.

I.ActivityAwayFromAssociatedPerson’sMemberFirm

14 TOC INDEX

MonetarySanction

Associated Person

Fine of $5,000 to $77,000.1


Associated Person

The first step in determining sanctions is to assess the extent of the selling away, including the dollar amount of sales, the number of customers and the length of time over which the selling away occurred. Adjudicators should consider the following range of sanctions based on the dollar amount of sales:

0 Up to $100,000 in sales: 10 business

days to 3 months

0 $100,000 to $500,000: 3 to 6 months

0 $500,000 to $1,000,000: 6 to 12 months

0 Over 1,000,000: 12 months to a bar

Following this assessment, Adjudicators should consider other factors as described in the Principal Considerations for this Guideline and the General Principles applicable to all Guidelines. The presence of one or more mitigating or aggravating factors may either raise or lower the above-described sanctions.

PrincipalConsiderationsinDeterminingSanctions1


1. The dollar volume of sales.

2. The number of customers.

3. The length of time over which the selling away activity occurred.

4. Whether the product sold away has been found to involve a violation of federal or state securities laws or federal, state or SRO rules.

5. Whether the respondent had a proprietary or beneficial interest in, or was otherwise affiliated with, the selling enterprise or issuer and, if so, whether respondent disclosed this information to his or her customers.

6. Whether respondent attempted to create the impression that his or her employer (member firm) sanctioned the activity, for example, by using the employer’s premises, facilities, name and/or goodwill for the selling away activity or by selling a product similar to the products that the employer (member firm) sells.

1. As set forth in General Principle No. 6, Adjudicators should also order disgorgement.

Selling Away (PrivateSecuritiesTransactions)FINRARules2010and3280


15 TOC INDEX

MonetarySanction

Member Firm

Where member firm receives written notice of a private securities transaction, but fails to provide written notice of approval, disapproval or acknowledgement, fine of $2,500 to $16,000.2


Member Firm

Where member firm receives written notice of a private securities transaction, but fails to provide written notice of approval, disapproval or acknowledgement, consider suspending responsible supervisory personnel in any or all capacities for up to two years.



7. Whether the respondent’s selling away activity resulted, either directly or indirectly, in injury to the investing public and, if so, the nature and extent of the injury.

8. Whether the respondent sold away to customers of his or her employer (member firm).

9. Whether the respondent provided his or her employer firm with verbal notice of the details of the proposed transaction and, if so, the firm’s verbal or written response, if any.

10. Whether the respondent sold away after being instructed by his or her firm not to sell the type of the product involved or to discontinue selling the specific product involved in the case.

11. Whether the respondent participated in the sale by referring customers or selling the product directly to customers.

12. Whether the respondent recruited other registered individuals to sell the product.

13. Whether the respondent misled his or her employer (member firm) about the existence of the selling away activity or otherwise concealed the selling away activity from the firm.

2. If the allegations involve a member’s failure to supervise the selling away activity, then Adjudicators should also consider the Supervision–Failure to Supervise guideline.

Selling Away (PrivateSecuritiesTransactions)—continuedFINRARules2010and3280


16 TOC INDEX

1. This guideline also is appropriate for violations of MSRB Rule G-28.

Transactions for or by Associated Persons—FailuretoComplyWithRuleRequirementsFINRARules2010and32101



1. Whether violative transactions presented real or perceived conflicts of interest for the employer firm and/or customers.

2. Whether violative transaction(s) involved violations of the Restrictions on the Purchase and Sale of Initial Public Offerings (FINRA Rule 5130).

3. Whether the respondent provided verbal notice of the violative transactions to the employer member and/or executing member, and whether the employer member verbally acquiesced.


Associated Person

In egregious cases, consider suspending the associated person in any or all capacities for up to two years or barring the associated person.

Executing Member Firm

In egregious cases, consider suspending the firm with respect to any or all activities or functions for up to two years. Also consider suspending the responsible individual at the executing firm in any or all capacities for up to two years or barring the responsible individual.

MonetarySanction

Associated Person

Fine of $1,000 to $39,000.


Executing Member Firm

Fine of $2,500 to $77,000.

17

II. Arbitration

• Arbitration Award—Failure to Honor or Failure to Honor in a Timely Manner

18 TOC INDEX

MonetarySanction

Failure to Honor

Fine of at least $5,000.

In egregious cases, consider incorporating a daily escalator into the fine amount.


Failure to Honor

Suspend the respondent in all capacities until the respondent satisfies the arbitration award (by payment or fully paid settlement) plus at least 30 additional business days. In egregious cases, consider a bar.

Failure to Honor in a Timely Manner

Suspend the respondent in all capacities for up to five business days.



1. Whether the respondent has paid any portion of the arbitration award.

2. Whether the respondent has made a good-faith attempt to satisfy the award in whole or in part. Consider the promptness of any such good-faith effort.

3. Whether the respondent negotiated a settlement or payment schedule with the arbitration claimant and then failed to abide by the terms of the agreement.

1. In addition, FINRA Rule 9554 indicates that FINRA also may suspend or cancel the membership of a member or the registration of a person for failure to honor an arbitration award or settlement agreement related to an arbitration or mediation under Article V, Section 3 of the FINRA By-Laws. This guideline also is appropriate for violations of MSRB Rule G-35.

Arbitration Award—FailuretoHonororFailuretoHonorinaTimelyMannerFINRARules2010and103301

II.Arbitration

Failure to Honor in a Timely Manner

Fine of at least $2,500.

19

III. Distributions of Securities

• Corporate Financing Rule—Failure to Comply With Rule Requirements

• Engaging in Prohibited Municipal Securities Business

• Escrow Violations—Prohibited Representations in Contingency Offerings; Transmission or Maintenance of Customer Funds in Underwritings

• Restrictions on the Purchase and Sale of Initial Equity Public Offerings Violations

• Unregistered Securities—Sales of

20 TOC INDEX


Corporate Financing Rule—FailuretoComplyWithRuleRequirementsFINRARules2010and5110



Failure to Comply with Filing Requirements

Unfair or Unreasonable Underwriting Compensation

1. Percentage and dollar amount of unreasonable compensation as compared to maximum amount of underwriting compensation considered fair and reasonable (see FINRA Rule 5110.



In egregious cases, consider suspending the firm with respect to any or all activities or functions for five business days and/or suspending the responsible individual in any or all capacities for a period of 30 business days to two years.


Individual

Consider suspending the responsible individual in any or all capacities for a period of 30 business days to two years.

In egregious cases, consider barring the responsible individual.

Firm

Consider suspending the firm with respect to any or all activities or functions for five business days.

In egregious cases, consider suspending the firm for a longer period of time.

MonetarySanction


Fine of $2,500 to $39,000.

III.DistributionsofSecurities


Fine of $5,000 to $77,000.1

21 TOC INDEX

1. MSRB Rule G-37 prohibits dealers from engaging in municipal securities business with an issuer within two years after any contribution to an official of such issuer made by the dealer, any municipal finance professional associated with the dealer, and any political action committee controlled by the dealer or any municipal finance professional.



Engaging in Prohibited Municipal Securities Business MSRBRuleG-371



1. Position in firm of person making contribution.

2. Position of official to whom the contribution was made.

3. Nature of prohibited municipal securities business in which respondent engaged.

4. Whether the respondent firm knew or should have known of contribution.

5. Relative size of the contribution.


In cases involving several prohibited municipal underwritings, or reckless conduct on the part of the firm, consider suspending the firm from engaging in municipal securities business with prohibited issuers for up to two years beyond the time proscribed by MSRB Rule G-37 and consider suspending the responsible individual(s) from acting as municipal principal(s) for a similar time period.

In egregious cases, consider prohibiting the firm from engaging in any future business with prohibited issuers or with the involved official and barring the responsible individual(s) in any or all principal capacities.

MonetarySanction

Firm

Fine of $10,000 to $77,000.2

Responsible Individual

Fine of $10,000 to $77,000.3


22 TOC INDEX

Escrow Violations—ProhibitedRepresentationsinContingencyOfferings;TransmissionorMaintenanceofCustomerFundsinUnderwritingsFINRARule2010;SECRule15c2-4andSECRule10b-9

MonetarySanction Suspension,BarorOtherSanctionsPrincipalConsiderationsinDeterminingSanctions


1. Amount of commissions and/or other underwriting compensation retained by the respondent.

2. Whether the respondent was affiliated with the issuer or other entity to which customer funds were released.

3. Whether subscription funds were released from escrow before the contingency occurred.

SEC Rule 15c2-4

4. Extent to which the customer funds were exposed to risk or loss.

SEC Rule 15c2-4

In egregious cases, consider suspending the firm with respect to any or all activities or functions and/or the responsible individual in any or all capacities for up to 30 business days.

SEC Rule 10b-9

In egregious cases, consider suspending the firm with respect to any or all activities or functions and/or the responsible individual in any or all capacities for up to two years. In appropriate cases, consider requiring a rescission offer.

SEC Rule 15c2-4

Fine of $1,000 to $16,000.

SEC Rule 10b-9

5. Extent of failure to satisfy the contingency described in the prospectus or offering circular.

6. Whether the respondent used non-bona fide sales to give the false appearance that the contingency was satisfied.


SEC Rule 10b-9

Fine of $5,000 to $77,000.

23 TOC INDEX

Restrictions on the Purchase and Sale of Initial Equity Public Offerings ViolationsFINRARules2010and5130



1. Nature of restricted account(s) involved. Consider whether the account is absolutely or conditionally restricted.

2. Whether the respondent has any interest in the restricted account(s).

3. Whether the case involves bona fide dispute regarding normal investment practice, proportion of allocation or substantiality of allocation.

4. Whether the respondent engaged in misconduct for the purpose of improperly conferring financial benefit on another person or entity.


Individual

Consider suspending the respondent representative (buyer or seller) in any or all capacities for up to 30 business days.

In egregious cases, consider a longer suspension (of up to two years) or a bar.

Firm

Consider suspending the respondent firm with respect to any or all activities or functions for five to 10 business days.

In egregious cases, consider a longer suspension (of up to two years) or an expulsion.

MonetarySanction

If the respondent is the restricted buyer, a fine of $1,000 to $23,000.

If the respondent is the selling member firm and/or an associated person of the firm, a fine of $1,000 to $23,000.

If the restricted buyer is not subject to FINRA jurisdiction, “transaction profit” may be added to the fine for the selling member and/or associated person. In egregious cases or those with evidence of willful misconduct, consider a higher fine of up to three times the “transaction profit.”


24 TOC INDEX



1. Whether the respondent’s unregistered securities sales resulted from an intentional act, recklessness or negligence.

2. Whether the respondent sold before the effective date of a registration statement.

3. Share volume of transactions, dollar amount of transactions, and amount of compensation earned by the respondent or the respondent’s firm on the transactions involved.

4. Whether the sales of unregistered securities were made in connection with an attempt to evade regulatory oversight.

5. Whether the respondent had implemented procedures that were reasonably designed to ensure that it did not participate in an unregistered distribution.

6. Whether the respondent disregarded “red flags” suggesting the presence of unregistered distribution.

7. Whether the respondent’s conduct involved a high volume of, or recurring transactions in, penny stocks as defined in Section 3(a)(51) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or related Exchange Act Rule 3a51-1.


Individual

Consider suspending an individual in any or all capacities for a period of 10 business days to six months.

Where aggravating factors predominate, or where the respondent’s conduct involved a high volume of or recurring transactions in penny stocks, consider a longer suspension in any or all capacities for up to two years or a bar.

Firm

Consider suspending the firm with respect to any or all relevant activities or functions for up to 30 business days or until procedural deficiencies are remedied.

Where aggravating factors predominate, or where the firm’s conduct involved a high volume of or recurring transactions in penny stocks, consider a longer suspension or an expulsion.

MonetarySanction

Fine of $2,500 to $77,000.

Where the respondent’s conduct involved a high volume of or recurring transactions in penny stocks, impose a fine of $5,000 to $155,000.

Where aggravating factors predominate, consider a higher fine.1

Unregistered Securities—SalesofFINRARule2010andSection5oftheSecuritiesActof1933



25

IV. Financial and Operational Practices

• Customer Confirmations—Failure to Comply With Rule Requirements

• Customer Protection Rule—Failure to Comply With Rule Requirements

• Net Capital Violations

• Recordkeeping Violations

• Regulation T and Margin Requirements—Violations of Regulation T and/or FINRA Margin Requirements

26 TOC INDEX



1. Nature and materiality of the inaccurate or missing information.

2. Number of affected confirmations.


Firm

Consider suspending the firm with respect to any or all activities or functions for up to 30 business days.

In egregious cases, consider a lengthier suspension (of up to two years) or expulsion of the firm.

Individual

Consider suspending the responsible party in any or all capacities for up to 30 business days.

In egregious cases, consider a lengthier suspension (of up to two years) or a bar.

MonetarySanction

First Action Fine of $1,000 to $7,000.

Second Action Fine of $5,000 to $16,000.

Subsequent Actions Fine of $10,000 to $155,000.

Customer Confirmations—FailuretoComplyWithRuleRequirementsSECRule10b-101andFINRARule2232

1. This guideline is also appropriate for violations of MSRB Rule G-15.

IV.FinancialandOperationalPractices

27 TOC INDEX

Customer Protection Rule—FailuretoComplyWithRuleRequirementsFINRARule2010andSECRule15c3-3

MonetarySanction

Fine of $1,000 to $77,000.

Repeated violations should carry individual fine for Financial Principal and/or responsible supervisor.


Firm



Individual

Consider suspending the Financial Principal or responsible party in any or all capacities for up to 30 business days.




1. Extent to which the respondent exposed customer funds to potential risk or loss.


28 TOC INDEX



1. Whether the firm continued in business while knowing of deficiencies/inaccuracies or voluntarily ceased conducting business because of the deficiencies/inaccuracies.

2. Whether respondent attempted to conceal deficiencies or inaccuracies by any means, including “parking” of inventory and inflating “mark-to-market” calculations.

Net Capital Violations FINRARule2010andSECRule15c3-1

MonetarySanction

Fine of $1,000 to $77,000.


Firm



Individual

Consider suspending the Financial Principal or responsible party in any or all capacities for up to 30 business days.



29 TOC INDEX



1. Nature and materiality of inaccurate or missing information.

2. The nature, proportion, and size of the firm records (e.g., emails) at issue.

3. Whether inaccurate or missing information was entered or omitted intentionally, recklessly, or as the result of negligence.

4. Whether the violations occurred during two or more examination or review periods or over an extended period of time, or involved a pattern or patterns of misconduct.

5. Whether the violations allowed other misconduct to occur or to escape detection.

1. This guideline also is appropriate for violations of MSRB Rules G-8 and G-9.

Recordkeeping Violations FINRARules4511and2010andSECRules17a-3and17a-41

MonetarySanction

Fine of $1,000 to $16,000.

Where aggravating factors predominate, consider a fine of $10,000 to $155,000.

Where significant aggravating factors predominate, consider a higher fine.



Consider suspending the responsible individual in any or all capacities for a period of 10 business days to three months.


Firm

Where aggravating factors predominate, consider suspending the firm for a period of 10 business days to two years, or consider expulsion of the firm.


30 TOC INDEX

Regulation T and Margin Requirements—ViolationsofRegulationTorFINRAMarginRequirementsRegulationT;Part220IssuedbytheBoardofGovernorsoftheFederalReserveBoard;andFINRARules2010and4210



1. Extent and nature of the respondent’s failure to comply.


Firm



Individual

Consider suspending the responsible individual in any or all capacities for up to 30 business days.


MonetarySanction

Fine of $1,000 to $77,000.

Repeated violations should carry an individual fine for the responsible individual.


31

V. Impeding Regulatory Investigations

• Confidentiality Agreements—Settling With Customer in Exchange for Customer Agreement Not to Cooperate With Regulatory Authorities

• Failure to Respond, Failure to Respond Truthfully or in a Timely Manner, or Providing a Partial but Incomplete Response to Requests Made Pursuant to FINRA Rule 8210

• Settling Customer Complaints Away From the Firm

32 TOC INDEX

MonetarySanction

Fine of $2,500 to $77,000.


Consider suspending the individual respondent in any or all capacities or suspending the firm (and/or responsible individual) with respect to any or all activities or functions for a period of one month to two years.

In egregious cases, expel the firm (and/or bar responsible individual) or bar the individual respondent.



1. Nature of restriction contained in confidentiality clause.

2. Whether the respondent voluntarily released the customer from terms of confidentiality agreement without regulatory intervention.

3. Whether the respondent released the customer from terms of confidentiality agreement (as applied to cooperation with regulatory authorities) after regulator advised the respondent to do so.

Confidentiality Agreements—SettlingWithCustomerinExchangeforCustomerAgreementNottoCooperateWithRegulatoryAuthoritiesFINRARule2010

V.ImpedingRegulatoryInvestigations

33 TOC INDEX

Failure to Respond, Failure to Respond Truthfully or in a Timely Manner, or Providing a Partial but Incomplete Response to Requests Made Pursuant to FINRA Rule 8210 FINRARules2010and8210

1. When a respondent does not respond until after FINRA files a complaint, Adjudicators should apply the presumption that the failure constitutes a complete failure to respond.

2. The lack of harm to customers or benefit to a violator does not mitigate a Rule 8210 violation.



Failure to Respond or to Respond Truthfully

1. Importance of the information requested as viewed from FINRA’s perspective.

Providing a Partial but Incomplete Response

1. Importance of the information requested that was not provided as viewed from FINRA’s perspective, and whether the information provided was relevant and responsive to the request.

2. Number of requests made, the time the respondent took to respond, and the degree of regulatory pressure required to obtain a response.

3. Whether the respondent thoroughly explains valid reason(s) for the deficiencies in the response.

Failure to Respond in a Timely Manner

1. Importance of the information requested as viewed from FINRA’s perspective.

2. Number of requests made and the degree of regulatory pressure required to obtain a response.

3. Length of time to respond.


Individual

If the individual did not respond in any manner, a bar should be standard.1

Where the individual provided a partial but incomplete response, a bar is standard unless the person can demonstrate that the information provided substantially complied with all aspects of the request.

Where mitigation exists, or the person did not respond in a timely manner, consider suspending the individual in any or all capacities for up to two years.2

Firm

In an egregious case, expel the firm. If mitigation exists, consider suspending the firm with respect to any or all activities or functions for up to two years.

In cases involving failure to respond in a timely manner, consider suspending the responsible individual(s) in any or all capacities and/or suspending the firm with respect to any or all activities or functions for a period of up to 30 business days.

MonetarySanction

Failure to Respond or to Respond Truthfully

Fine of $25,000 to $77,000.

Providing a Partial but Incomplete Response

Fine of $10,000 to $77,000.

Failure to Respond in a Timely Manner

Fine of $2,500 to $39,000.


34 TOC INDEX



1. Whether the respondent provided the employer with verbal notice of settlement and the employer acquiesced, or whether the respondent deceived his employer.

2. Whether the actions delayed or obviated the filing of required Forms U-4 or U-5 or FINRA Rule 4530 filings.


Consider suspending the respondent in any or all capacities for up to two years. In egregious cases, consider barring respondent.

MonetarySanction

Fine of $2,500 to $77,000.

Settling Customer Complaints Away From the FirmFINRARule2010


35

VI. Improper Use of Funds/Forgery

• Conversion or Improper Use of Funds or Securities

• Forgery, Unauthorized Use of Signatures or Falsification of Records

36 TOC INDEX


Conversion

Bar the respondent regardless of amount converted.

Improper Use

Consider a bar. Where the improper use resulted from the respondent’s misunderstanding of his or her customer’s intended use of the funds or securities, or other mitigation exists, consider suspending the respondent in any or all capacities for a period of six months to two years and thereafter until the respondent pays restitution.




2. Conversion generally is an intentional and unauthorized taking of and/or exercise of ownership over property by one who neither owns the property nor is entitled to possess it.

Conversion or Improper Use of Funds or SecuritiesFINRARules2010and21501

MonetarySanction

Conversion2

(No fine recommended, since a bar is standard.)

Improper Use

Fine of $2,500 to $77,000.

VI.ImproperUseofFunds/Forgery

37 TOC INDEX

Forgery, Unauthorized Use of Signatures or Falsification of Records FINRARule2010

MonetarySanction

For signatures or falsifications involving a transaction, if the transaction is authorized, in the absence of other violations or customer harm: fine of $5,000 to $11,000.1

Where a respondent affixes a signature to or falsifies a document without authorization, in the absence of other violations or customer harm: fine of $5,000 to $155,000.


For signatures or falsifications involving a transaction, if the transaction is authorized, in the absence of other violations or customer harm: consider suspending the respondent for period of 10 business days to six months.2

Where a respondent affixes a signature to or falsifies a document without authorization or ratification, in the absence of other violations or customer harm: consider suspending the respondent for a period of two months to two years.

Where a respondent affixes a signature to or falsifies a document without authorization, in furtherance of another violation, resulting in customer harm or accompanied by significant aggravating factors: a bar is standard.



1. Nature of the document(s) signed or falsified.

2. Whether the respondent had a good-faith, but mistaken, belief of express or implied authority.

3. Whether the customer possessed or saw the document before the customer’s signature was affixed to it, and the customer affirmed the signature.

4. If the document pertained to a transaction, whether the transaction was agreed to by an authorized person.

5. Whether the customer re-signed the document or ratified the signature.

VI.ImproperUseofFunds/Forgery

1. Where the respondent falsifies a document to assist a customer’s or third party’s wrongdoing, this lower tier would not apply.

2. Where the respondent falsifies a document to assist a customer’s or third party’s wrongdoing, this lower tier would not apply.

38

VII. Qualification and Membership

• Branch Offices—Failure to Register

• Cheating, Using an Impostor, or Possessing Unauthorized Materials in Qualifications Examinations or in the Regulatory Element of Continuing Education

• Continuing Education (Firm Element)—Failure to Comply With Rule Requirements

• Continuing Education (Regulatory Element)—Failure to Comply With Rule Requirements

• Disqualified Person Associating With Firm Prior to Approval; Firm Allowing Disqualified Person to Associate Prior to Approval

• Member Agreement Violations

• Registration Violations

39 TOC INDEX

Branch Offices—FailuretoRegisterFINRARules2010and3110

MonetarySanction

Fine of $1,000 to $7,000 plus the dollar amount of registration fees that would have been assessed if the branch had been registered properly.


Individual

In egregious cases (including, but not limited to, those in which the firm previously has engaged in similar misconduct), consider suspending the responsible individual in any or all capacities for up to 30 business days.

Firm

In egregious cases (including, but not limited to, those in which the firm previously has engaged in similar misconduct), consider suspending the firm and/or the branch office at issue with respect to any or all activities or functions for up to five business days. Also require demonstrated compliance with the rule.



1. Number of branch office locations not properly registered.

2. Duration of period when branch office(s) were not properly registered.

3. The manner and scope of activities conducted in unregistered branch office(s).

VII.QualificationandMembership

40 TOC INDEX


A bar is standard. If mitigation is documented (only in cases of unauthorized possession that do not rise to the level of cheating), consider a lesser sanction, such as suspending the individual in any or all capacities for up to two years.


2. (a) The Membership and Registration Rules prohibit applicants from receiving assistance while taking an examination; (b) study outlines provided by FINRA Regulation Qualifications Department advise applicants that examinations are “closed book”; (c) examination pamphlet given to applicants advises that unauthorized materials may not be brought by the applicant into the testing center;

(d) applicants taking an examination by computer must certify by prescribed keystrokes, to continue computer operation, that they will take the examination in the prescribed fashion and not receive assistance while taking the examination and, for paper examinations, applicants must sign a certification before beginning examination; and (e) proctor instructions before examinations advise applicants that unauthorized materials are not allowed during the examination.

Cheating, Using an Impostor, or Possessing Unauthorized Materials in Qualifications Examinations or in the Regulatory Element of Continuing EducationFINRARule20101



1. Whether nature of material indicated that it would not be useful for taking examination; i.e., whether content of material makes it clear that respondent did not intend to cheat.

MonetarySanction

Cheating

Unauthorized Possession That Does Not Rise to the Level of Cheating

Fine of $5,000 to $39,000.


41 TOC INDEX

1. This guideline is intended to apply to member firms that have not developed sufficient continuing education programs and/or made available to registered employees continuing education programs, and to individuals who fail to comply with the firm educational program.


Continuing Education (Firm Element)—FailuretoComplyWithRuleRequirements1

FINRARules20102and1250

MonetarySanction

Individual

Fine of $1,000 to $7,000.

Firm and/or Responsible Principal

Fine of $2,500 to $31,000.


Individual

In egregious cases, such as where there is intentional misconduct and/or repeat violations, suspend the individual in any or all capacities for 30 or more days (up to two years) or consider a bar.

Firm and/or Responsible Principal

In cases involving multiple violations or a violation of extended duration, where the firm has taken no corrective actions and appears unwilling to comply, consider suspending the firm (and/or responsible principal) with respect to any or all activities or functions for up to five business days and requiring demonstrated compliance with the requirements of FINRA Rule 1250.

In egregious cases, such as where the firm has not conducted a needs analysis or developed a written training plan, consider suspending the firm (and/or responsible principal) for a longer period (up to two years) or expelling the firm (and/or barring responsible principal).



1. Whether the firm’s misconduct effectively denied several registered persons access to participation in firm-sponsored continuing education.

2. Whether the firm has completed a training needs analysis and/or has developed written training plans aligned with the business activities of the firm.


42 TOC INDEX

MonetarySanction

Individual

Fine of $1,000 to $7,000.3


Individual

In egregious cases, such as where there is intentional misconduct and/or repeat violations, suspend individual in any or all capacities for 30 or more days (up to two years) or consider a bar.

Firm

Where the firm has taken no corrective actions and appears unwilling to comply, consider suspending the firm (and/or responsible principal) with respect to any or all activities or functions for up to five business days. In egregious cases, such as those where the firm knowingly allowed a person with lapsed registration to act in a registered capacity and/or in cases with other aggravating factors, consider a longer suspension (of up to two years) of the firm (and/or responsible principal) or expulsion of the firm (and/or bar of the responsible principal).



1. Nature and extent of responsibilities of inactive person(s).

Violations by Individuals

2. Whether the respondent knowingly functioned with inactive registration.

Violations by Firms

3. Whether the firm knowingly allowed individual to function while registration was inactive.

1. This guideline is intended to apply to individuals who have not complied with the Regulatory Element and are acting in a registered capacity and to firms that have employed one or more individuals whose registration has lapsed for non-compliance with continuing education requirements and who continue to work in registered capacities.




Continuing Education (Regulatory Element)—FailuretoComplyWithRuleRequirements1



Firm

Fine of $2,500 to $31,000.4

43 TOC INDEX

MonetarySanction

Firm and Supervisory Principals

Fine of $5,000 to $77,000.2


Firm and Supervisory Principals

In egregious cases, consider suspending the firm with respect to any or all activities or functions for up to two years and the suspending supervisory principal in any or all capacities for up to two years or barring the supervisory principal, particularly where he or she knowingly allowed a disqualified person to become associated.

Disqualified Person

In egregious cases, consider a bar.



1. Nature and extent of the disqualified person’s activities and responsibilities.

2. Whether Form MC-400 application was pending.

3. Whether disqualification resulted from financial and/or securities misconduct.




Disqualified Person Associating With Firm Prior to Approval; Firm Allowing Disqualified Person to Associate Prior to ApprovalFINRARule2010,NASDRule1031andArticleIII,Section3oftheFINRABy-Laws1


Disqualified Person

Fine of $5,000 to $77,000.3

44 TOC INDEX


Member Agreement Violations FINRARule2010

MonetarySanction

Fine of $2,500 to $77,000.1


In cases involving a serious breach of a restrictive agreement, suspend the firm with respect to any or all activities or functions and/or suspend the responsible individual in any or all capacities for up to two years.

In egregious cases, consider expelling the firm and/or barring the responsible individual.



1. Whether the respondent breached a material provision of the agreement.

2. Whether the respondent breached a provision of the agreement that contained a restriction that was particularto the firm.

3. Whether the firm had applied for, was in the process of applying for, or had been denied a waiver of a restriction at the time of the misconduct.


45 TOC INDEX



Registration ViolationsFINRARules2010and1122,andNASDRules1000through11201

MonetarySanction

Firm and/or Individual

Fine of $2,500 to $77,0002


Firm

In egregious cases, consider suspending the firm with respect to any or all activities or functions for up to 30 business days.

Individual

Consider suspending the individual in any or all capacities for up to six months.

In egregious cases, consider a lengthier suspension (of up to two years) or bar.


1. Whether the respondent has filed a registration application.

2. Nature and extent of the unregistered person’s responsibilities.


46

VIII. Quality of Markets

• Extended Hours Trading Risk Disclosure—Failure to Comply With Rule Requirements

• Anti-Intimidation/Coordination—Failure to Comply With Rule Requirements

• Backing Away

• Best Execution—Failure to Comply With Requirements for Best Execution

• Consolidated Audit Trail System (CAT)—Late Reporting; Failing to Report; False, Inaccurate or Misleading Reporting; and Clock Synchronization Failure

• ECN Display Rule—Failure to Comply With Rule Requirements

• Failure to Display Minimum Size in NASDAQ Securities, CQS Securities and OTC Bulletin BoardTM Securities

• Limit Order Display Rule—Failure to Comply With Rule Requirements

• Limit Order Protection Rule—Failure to Comply With Rule Requirements

• Locked/Crossed Market—Failure to Comply With Rule Requirements

• Options Exercise and Positions Limits—Failure to Comply With Rule Requirements

• Options Positions Reporting—Late Reporting and Failing to Report

• Order Audit Trail System (OATS)TM—Late Reporting; Failing to Report; False, Inaccurate or Misleading Reporting; and Clock Synchronization Failure

• Passive Market Making Violations

• Prohibition on Transactions, Publication of Quotations or Publication of Indications of Interest During a Trading Halt

• Reports of Execution Quality and Order Routing

• Short Interest Reporting

• Short Sale Violations

• Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (TRACE)—Late Reporting; Failing to Report; False, Inaccurate or Incomplete Reporting

• Trade Reporting—Late Reporting; Failing to Report; False, Inaccurate or Misleading Reporting

47 TOC INDEX

Extended Hours Trading Risk Disclosure—FailuretoComplyWithRuleRequirementsFINRARule2265

MonetarySanction

Fine of $5,000 to $155,000.


Consider suspending the responsible individual in any or all capacities for a period of 10 business days to one year.

In egregious cases, particularly cases involving numerous customers, consider suspending for a longer period (of up to two years) or barring the responsible individual and suspending the firm with respect to any or all activities or functions for a period of up to two years.



1. Whether the firm failed to provide customer(s) with a risk disclosure statement.

2. Whether the firm provided its customer(s) with an inadequate risk disclosure statement, or furnished the risk disclosure statement to its customer(s) in an untimely manner or a manner not designed to provide actual notice.

3. In all cases, consider the nature, quality and timing of the risk disclosure actually provided to the customer(s).

4. Whether extended-hours trading was appropriate for the affected customer(s).

VIII.QualityofMarkets

48 TOC INDEX

Anti-Intimidation/Coordination—FailuretoComplyWithRuleRequirementsFINRARules2010and5240

MonetarySanction

Intimidation/Harassment

Fine of $5,000 to $77,000.

In egregious cases, consider a fine in excess of $77,000.


Intimidation/Harassment

In egregious cases, suspend the individual respondent in any or all capacities and/or the member firm respondent with respect to any or all activities or functions for a period of 10 business days to two years.

In egregious cases involving intimidation, consider barring the individual respondent.

Coordination

Suspend the individual respondent in any or all capacities and/or the member firm respondent with respect to any or all activities or functions for a period of 30 business days to two years.

In egregious cases, consider expelling the member firm and/or barring the individual respondent.



1. Whether the behavior was collusive or part of a larger manipulation.

2. Whether the behavior attempted to affect or actually affected publicly disseminated quotes or otherwise inhibited market transparency.

3. Whether the behavior attempted to or actually resulted in late or inaccurate trade reporting.

4. Whether the behavior attempted to or actually altered market prices.

5. In the case of intimidation or harassment, nature and content of the respondent’s speech, communications and/or harassing behavior.

6. The general effect of the behavior on the fair and efficient operation of the securities markets.

7. Whether the behavior was repetitive or a single impulsive action.


Coordination

Fine of $10,000 to $155,000.


49 TOC INDEX



1. Whether the respondent offered contemporaneous trades or otherwise remediated the failures to execute.

2. Whiletherespondentsareresponsibleforthesystemsthattheyuseandthethird-partyvendorsthattheyemploy,theappropriatelevelofsanctionswilldependonwhethertherespondentdiligentlychose,installedandtestedasystemthatneverthelessmalfunctioned;thefrequencyandthoroughnesswithwhichtherespondentensuredthatthesystemwasoperatingincompliancewithapplicablerules;andthecarethattherespondentexercisedinundertakingallnecessarystepstocorrectsystems-relatedmalfunctions.Thesameconsiderationsapplytoarespondentthathasreliedonathird-partyvendor’sproductsorservices.


In egregious cases, consider suspending the firm with respect to any or all activities or functions and/or suspending the responsible individual in any or all capacities for up to two years.

MonetarySanction2

First Action3 Fine of $5,000 to $16,000.


Subsequent Actions Fine of $10,000 to $155,000.4

Backing AwayFINRARules2010and52201


2. In cases in which the violations: (1) involve a pattern or patterns of misconduct; (2) can be quantified by number or percentage; or (3) can be compared to the standard maintained by industry peers, Adjudicators may consider deviating from the fine structure recommended in this guideline for first, second, or subsequent actions. Imposition of monetary sanctions greater than those recommended in this guideline may be particularly appropriate in cases involving violations that occurred during two or more examination or review periods or violations that occurred over an extended period of time. Similarly, in cases in which the respondent acted intentionally or recklessly, and in cases in which the respondent’s compliance rate is significantly lower than that of its peers, Adjudicators may impose a monetary sanction in excess of the recommended range.

3. Adjudicators should consider actions concerning violative events that occurred within the three years prior to the misconduct at issue. Events that are more recent in time, however, should be given more weight than less recent events.

4. If the respondent’s second or subsequent action involves a violation that is less serious than a prior violation, includes conduct that demonstrates that respondent is improving its compliance rate, or involves mitigation that did not exist in a prior action, Adjudicators may consider imposing a fine that is less than the fine imposed in the prior action.


50 TOC INDEX



1. Nature of the best execution violation; i.e., whether the execution was at an inferior price or was untimely.

2. Whether the respondent failed to conduct reasonable regular and rigorous reviews of execution quality that considered all relevant factors (e.g., potential for price improvement).

3. While the respondents are responsible for the systems that they use and the third-party vendors that they employ, the appropriate level of sanctions will depend on whether the respondent diligently chose, installed and tested a system that nevertheless malfunctioned; the frequency and thoroughness with which the respondent ensured that the system was operating in compliance with applicable rules; and the care that the respondent exercised in undertaking all necessary steps to correct systems-related malfunctions. The same considerations apply to a respondent that has relied on a third-party vendor’s products or services.


Negligent Misconduct

Consider suspending the responsible individual in any or all capacities or the firm with respect to any or all activities or functions for a period of 10 to 30 business days.

Intentional or Reckless Misconduct

Consider suspending the responsible individual in any or all capacities, or suspend the firm with respect to any or all relevant activities or functions, for a period of 10 business days to two years.

Where aggravating factors predominate, consider barring the individual or expelling the firm.

MonetarySanction2

First Action3

Fine of $5,000 to $77,000.



Best Execution—FailuretoComplyWithRequirementsforBestExecutionFINRARule5310and20101

1. This guideline may also be appropriate for violations of MSRB Rules G-18 and G-30 that do not involve a dealer’s excessive profit, but do involve unfair pricing based on an inattention to market value. See MSRB Notice 2004-3 (Review of Dealer Pricing Responsibilities) (Jan. 26, 2004).

2. In cases in which the violations: (1) involve a pattern or patterns of misconduct; (2) can be quantified by number or percentage; or (3) can be compared to the standard maintained by industry peers, Adjudicators may consider deviating from the fine structure recommended in this guideline. Imposition of monetary sanctions greater than those recommended in this guideline may be particularly appropriate in cases involving violations that occurred during two or more examination or review periods or violations that occurred over an extended period of time. Similarly, in cases in which the respondent acted intentionally or recklessly, and in cases in which the respondent’s compliance rate is significantly lower than that of its peers, Adjudicators may impose a monetary sanction in excess of the recommended range. Adjudicators should order restitution or increase the recommended fine amount by adding the amount of a respondent’s

financial benefit in all cases in which the best execution violation resulted in a quantifiable loss for the customer. In cases involving best execution violations that arose from intentional or reckless misconduct, Adjudicators may consider imposing a set fine amount per violation rather than in the aggregate.




51 TOC INDEX


4. For securities with limited quotations or pricing information available, whether the character of the market for the security was reasonably assessed, including an analysis of price, volatility and relative liquidity, and whether reliable source(s) of pricing information or potential liquidity were considered.

5. The number of affected customers and quantified customer harm.

Best Execution—FailuretoComplyWithRequirementsforBestExecution—continuedFINRARule5310and2010

Suspension,BarorOtherSanctionsMonetarySanction


52 TOC INDEX


2. A respondent’s delegation of its reporting responsibilities to a third party who caused or contributed to respondent’s violation is not an independent basis for mitigation.


4. In cases in which the respondent fails for more than five consecutive business days to detect a failure to report that would have been apparent from a review of data available through the CAT Reporter Portal, Adjudicators should consider the respondent’s violations to be egregious.

5. If respondent’s second or subsequent action involves a violation that is less serious than a prior violation, includes conduct that demonstrates that respondent is improving its compliance rate, or involves mitigation that did not exist in a prior action, Adjudicators may consider imposing a fine that is less than the fine imposed in the prior action.

Consolidated Audit Trail System (CAT)—LateReporting;FailingtoReport;False,InaccurateorMisleadingReporting;andClockSynchronizationFailureFINRARules6800et seq.

MonetarySanction1

Late Reporting, Failing to Report, False, Inaccurate or Misleading Reporting




In all egregious cases, whether a first, second, or subsequent action, consider a fine greater than or equal to the high end of the range for a first, second, or subsequent action.

Failure to Synchronize Clocks




For All Types of Violations

Firm

Subsequent Actions Consider suspending the firm with respect to any or all activities or functions for up to 30 business days.


Individual

Subsequent Actions Consider suspending the responsible individual in any or all capacities for up to 30 business days.




1. Nature of FINRA CAT reporting violation.

2. Extent to which violative conduct affected the regulatory audit trail.

3. Whether violation occurred over an extended period of days.

4. Whether reporting violation was readily apparent from a review of reporting metric information provided to CAT Reporters through the CAT Reporter Portal and in feedback files.4

5. While respondents are responsible for the systems that they use and the third-party vendors that they employ, the appropriate level of sanctions will depend on whether the respondent diligently chose, installed, and tested a system that nevertheless malfunctioned; the frequency and thoroughness with which the respondent ensured that the system was operating in compliance with applicable rules; and the care that the respondent exercised in undertaking all necessary steps to correct systems-related malfunctions. The same considerations apply to a respondent that has relied on a third-party vendor’s products or services.

53 TOC INDEX




ECN Display Rule—FailuretoComplyWithRuleRequirementsFINRARule2010andRegulationNMS,Rule602

MonetarySanction1





In egregious cases, consider suspending the firm with respect to any or all activities or functions and/or suspending the responsible individual in any or all capacities for up to two years or expelling the firm and/or barring the responsible individual.



1. Whether the priced order was a customer order, rather than an order entered for the account of the market maker.

2. Whether the priced customer order was executed during the period of non-compliance, while other transactions were executed in the marketplace at prices equal to or better than that priced order.

3. Evidence of significant adverse impact on market-price discovery or transparency that occurred because the order was not displayed at all, was displayed only after long delay, or was displayed in a grossly incorrect manner.

4. While respondents are responsible for the systems that they use and the third-party vendors that they employ, the appropriate level of sanctions will depend on whether the respondent diligently chose, installed and tested a system that nevertheless malfunctioned; the frequency and thoroughness with which the respondent ensured that the system was operating in compliance with applicable rules; and the care that the respondent exercised in undertaking all necessary steps to correct systems-related malfunctions. The same considerations apply to a respondent that has relied on a third-party vendor’s products or services.


54 TOC INDEX

MonetarySanction1




Suspension,Bar,orOtherSanctions

In egregious cases, consider suspending the firm with respect to any or all activities or functions for up to 20 business days and/or suspending the responsible individual in any or all capacities for up to 20 business days.






Failure to Display Minimum Size in NASDAQ Securities, CQS Securities and OTC Bulletin Board Securities FINRARules2010,6170and6272,andSECRule144A


55 TOC INDEX



1. Whether the customer limit order was executed during the period of non-compliance and whether other transactions were executed at prices equal to or better than that customer limit order.

2. Whether the misconduct had a significant adverse impact on market-price discovery or transparency.




MonetarySanction1




Limit Order Display Rule—FailuretoComplyWithRuleRequirementsFINRARule2010andRegulationNMS,Rule604





56 TOC INDEX



1. Whether respondent traded ahead of and/or failed to execute a customer limit order.



In egregious cases, consider suspending the firm with respect to any or all activities or functions and/or suspending the responsible individual in any or all capacities for up to two years.

MonetarySanction1




Limit Order Protection Rule—FailuretoComplyWithRuleRequirementsFINRARules2010and5320





57 TOC INDEX



1. Whether the locked/crossed market affected the market at a particularly sensitive time, such as at the market open, at commencement of secondary trading or on an expiration date.




MonetarySanction1




Locked/Crossed Market—FailuretoComplyWithRuleRequirementsFINRARules2010,6170and6272





58 TOC INDEX



1. Whether the misconduct resulted in protecting a securities position or enhancing size.

2. Whether the respondent received a benefit from the misconduct, including but not limited to increased valuation of inventory, avoidance of margin calls or affecting month-end performance.

3. Whether the activity affected the market at a particularly sensitive time, such as on an expiration date.

4. Whether the misconduct was an isolated incident involving one stock or a systemic pattern of behavior involving multiple stocks.



Suspend the individual in any or all capacities and/or suspend firm with respect to any or all activities or functions for up to 30 business days.


Suspend the individual in any or all capacities and/or suspend firm with respect to any or all activities or functions for up to two years.

In egregious cases, consider barring the individual and/or expelling the firm.

MonetarySanction

Fine of $25,000 to $310,000.


Marking the Close or Open FINRARules2010and5210


59 TOC INDEX




In egregious cases, consider suspending the firm with respect to any or all activities or functions and/or suspending the responsible individual in any or all capacities for up to two years or prohibiting the firm from conducting options transactions.

MonetarySanction1




Options Exercise and Positions Limits—FailuretoComplyWithRuleRequirementsFINRARules2010and2360





60 TOC INDEX



1. Size of the positions not reported.

2. Whether respondent violated rule requirements during an extended period of days. (Adjudicators should treat as aggravating the fact that a respondent’s failure to report or incorrect reporting occurred for more than one week. Adjudicators should treat as egregious misconduct a respondent’s failure to report for several weeks.)

3. Evidence of respondent’s potential for benefit or monetary gain.


Failure to Report

In egregious cases, consider suspending the responsible individual in any or all capacities for up to two years. Also consider suspending the firm from conducting options transactions for up to two years or barring the firm from conducting options transactions.

MonetarySanction2

Late Reporting and Failing to Report




In all egregious cases, whether a first, second or subsequent action, consider a fine greater than or equal to the high end of the range for a first, second or subsequent action. Also consider imposing the fine on a “per violation” basis.

Options Positions Reporting—LateReportingandFailingtoReportFINRARule2010and2360(b)(5)






61 TOC INDEX

Order Audit Trail System (OATS)—LateReporting;FailingtoReport;False,InaccurateorMisleadingReporting;andClockSynchronizationFailureFINRARules7400through7460



1. Nature of OATS reporting violation.

2. Extent to which violative conduct affected the regulatory audit trail.

3. Whether violation occurred over an extended period of days.

4. Whether reporting violation was readily apparent from a review of FINRA’s OATS website.4

5. While respondents are responsible for the systems that they use and the third-party vendors that they employ, the appropriate level of sanctions will depend on whether the respondent diligently chose, installed, and tested a system that nevertheless malfunctioned; the frequency and thorough ness with which the respondent ensured that the system was operating in compliance with applicable rules; and the care that the respondent exercised in undertaking all necessary steps to correct systems-related malfunctions. The same considerations apply to a respondent that has relied on a third-party vendor’s products or services.



Firm

Subsequent Actions Consider suspending the firm with respect to any or all activities or functions for up to 30 business days.


Individual

Subsequent Actions Consider suspending the responsible individual in any or all capacities for up to 30 business days.


MonetarySanction1

Late Reporting, Failing to Report, False, Inaccurate or Misleading Reporting




In all egregious cases, whether a first, second, or subsequent action, consider a fine greater than or equal to the high end of the range for a first, second, or subsequent action.

Failure to Synchronize Clocks






4. In cases in which the respondent fails for more than one week to detect a failure to report that would have been apparent from a review of data on the OATS website, Adjudicators should consider the respondent’s violations to be egregious.



62 TOC INDEX




Passive Market Making ViolationsFINRARule2010andRegulationM

MonetarySanction1





In egregious cases, consider suspending responsible individual in any or all capacities for up to two years or barring responsible individual. Also consider suspending the firm with respect to any or all activities or functions for up to two years.




63 TOC INDEX


Prohibition on Transactions, Publication of Quotations or Publication of Indications of Interest During a Trading HaltFINRARules2010and52601

MonetarySanction

Fine of $5,000 to $77,000.

Adjudicators may consider ordering restitution or disgorgement in appropriate cases.






1. Whether respondent knew of the trading halt.


64 TOC INDEX

Reports of Execution Quality and Order RoutingRegulationNMS,Rules605&606

MonetarySanction1





Suspension,BarorOtherSanctionsPrincipalConsiderationsinDeterminingSanctions

See Principal Considerations in Introductory Section3

1. Whether respondent violated rule requirements during a period of months.4



2. Adjudicators should consider actions concerning violative events that occurred within the three years prior to the misconduct at issue. Events that are more recent in time should be given more weight than less recent events.


4. Adjudicators should treat as aggravating the fact that a respondent’s failure to report or incorrect reporting occurred for more than one month.



65 TOC INDEX

Short Interest Reporting FINRARule4560

MonetarySanction




Where aggravating factors predominate, consider a higher fine.



Consider suspending individual respondent in any or all capacities for a period of 10 to 30 business days.


Consider suspending individual respondent in any or all capacities, or the firm with respect to any or all relevant activities or functions, for a period of 10 business days to two years.




1. The number of short interest reporting cycles for which the respondent failed to report short interest or reported short interest incorrectly.

2. The number and size of positions that the respondent failed to report or reported incorrectly.

3. Whether the firm failed to exercise reasonable supervision of its short interest reporting process or system.


5. The extent to which the violations affected the public dissemination of short interest data.

1. A respondent’s delegation of its reporting responsibilities to a third party who caused or contributed to respondent’s violation is not a basis for mitigation.


66 TOC INDEX

MonetarySanction1






If the short-selling customer is not subject to FINRA jurisdiction, in egregious cases or those with evidence of willful misconduct, consider adding the amount of the short-selling customer’s “transaction profit”3 to the fine for the executing member or associated person. In egregious cases, consider suspending the firm with respect to any or all relevant activities or functions or suspending the responsible individual in any or all capacities for up to two years or expelling the firm or barring the responsible individual.




1. In cases in which the violations: (1) involve a pattern or patterns of misconduct; (2) can be quantified by number or percentage; or (3) can be compared to the standard maintained by industry peers, Adjudicators may consider deviating from the fine structure recommended in this guideline for first, second, or subsequent actions. Imposition of monetary sanctions greater than those recommended in this guideline may be particularly appropriate in cases involving violations that occurred during two or more examination or review periods or violations that occurred over an extended period of time. Similarly, in cases in which the respondent acted intentionally or recklessly, and in cases in which the respondent’s compliance rate is significantly lower than its peers, Adjudicators may impose a monetary sanction in excess of the recommended range.


3. “Transaction profit” means the profit that the short-selling customer realized. This amount is separate and distinct from the respondent’s financial benefit, as described in General Principle No. 6.


Short Sale ViolationsFINRARules7230Aand7330,andRegulationSHO


67 TOC INDEX

MonetarySanction2








Firm

In egregious cases, consider a suspension (of up to two years) or expulsion of the firm.


Consider suspending the responsible individual in any or all capacities for up to 30 business days.




1. Extent to which violative conduct affected market transparency, the dissemination of trade information, or the regulatory audit trail.


3. Whether respondent violated rule requirements during an extended period of days. (Adjudicators should treat as aggravating the fact that a respondent’s failure to report or incorrect reporting occurred for more than one week. Adjudicators should treat as egregious misconduct a respondent’s failing to report for several weeks.)

4. Whether a reporting violation was readily apparent from a review of FINRA’s TRACE website (or MSRB’s website for violations of MSRB Rule G-14).6

Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (TRACE)—LateReporting;FailingtoReport;False,InaccurateorIncompleteReportingFINRARules2010and67301

(footnotes continue on next page)


68 TOC INDEX

1. This guideline also is appropriate for violations of MSRB Rule G-14 AND G-17.





6. In cases in which the respondent does not detect a reporting failure or violation that would have been apparent from a routine review of data such as, for example, transaction reporting cards on FINRA’s TRACE website or MSRB’s website, Adjudicators should consider the respondent’s violations to be egregious.


Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (TRACE)—LateReporting;FailingtoReport;False,InaccurateorIncompleteReporting—continuedFINRARules2010and67301

69 TOC INDEX

MonetarySanction1




In all egregious cases, whether a first, second or subsequent action, consider a fine greater than or equal to the high end of the range for a first, second, or subsequent action.


In egregious cases, consider suspending the firm with respect to any or all activities or functions and/or suspending responsible individual in any or all capacities for up to two years.

Also consider expelling the firm and/or barring the responsible individual.


2. Adjudicators should consider actions concerning violative events that occurred within the three years prior to the misconduct at issue. Events that are more recent in time should be given more weight than less recent events.


Trade Reporting—LateReporting;FailingtoReport;False,InaccurateorMisleadingReportingFINRARule2010andEquityTradeReportingRules



1. Nature of trade reporting violation.

2. Whether violative conduct affected market-price discovery data.

3. Whether operational problems caused delayed reports.

4. Whether respondent violated rule requirements over an extended period of days.



70

IX. Reporting/Provision of Information

• FOCUS Reports—Late Filing; Failing to File; Filing False or Misleading Reports

• Forms U4/U5—Late Filing of Forms or Amendments; Failing to File Forms or Amendments; Filing of False, Misleading or Inaccurate Forms or Amendments

• MSRB Rule G-37 Reporting—Late Filing; Failing to File; Filing False or Misleading Reports

• Regulation M Reports—Late Filing; Failing to File; False or Misleading Filing

• Reportable Events Under FINRA Rule 4530—Late Reporting; Failing to Report; Filing False, Inaccurate or Misleading Reports

• Request for Automated Submission of Trading Data—Failure to Respond in a Timely and Accurate Manner

71 TOC INDEX



1. Number of days late respondent filed reports.

2. Whether respondent filed late to delay reporting a recordkeeping, operational, or financial deficiency.


Late Filing

In egregious cases, consider suspending the firm from all solicited retail business for up to 20 business days; also consider suspending the Financial Principal or other responsible principal in any or all capacities for up to 10 business days.

Failure to File or Filing False or Misleading Reports

Consider suspending the firm from all solicited retail business for up to 30 business days and thereafter until the firm corrects all deficiencies; also consider suspending the Financial Principal or other responsible principal in any or all capacities for up to two years.

MonetarySanction

Late Filing

Fine of $1,000 to $31,000.

FOCUS Reports—LateFiling;FailingtoFile;FilingFalseorMisleadingReportsFINRARule2010andSECRule17a-51

1. This guideline is intended to apply to FOCUS Reports Parts I, II and IIA.

IX.Reporting/ProvisionofInformation

Failure to File or Filing False or Misleading Reports

Fine of $10,000 to $77,000.

72 TOC INDEX

MonetarySanction

Individual Fine of $2,500 to $39,000.

Forms U4/U5—LateFilingofFormsorAmendments;FailingtoFileFormsorAmendments;FilingofFalse,MisleadingorInaccurateFormsorAmendmentsArticleVofFINRABy-LawsandFINRARule1122and20101



1. Nature and significance of information at issue.

2. The number, nature, and dollar value of the disclosable events at issue.

3. Whether the omission of information or the inclusion of false information was done in an intentional effort to conceal information or in an attempt to mislead.

4. The duration of the delinquency.

5. Whether the failure to disclose or timely to disclose delayed any regulatory investigation.

6. Whether a lien or judgment that was not timely disclosed has been satisfied.

7. Whether the failure resulted in a statutorily disqualified individual becoming or remaining associated with a firm.

8. Whether the respondent’s misconduct resulted directly or indirectly in injury to other parties, including the investing public, and, if so, the nature and extent of the injury.

1. This guideline also is appropriate for violations of MSRB Rule G-7 and for failures to report changes in ownership or control of member firms.



Individual

Where aggravating factors are present, consider suspending individual in any or all capacities for a period of 10 business days to six months.

Where aggravating factors predominate, consider a longer suspension in any or all capacities (of up to two years) or, where the respondent intended to conceal information or mislead, a bar.

Responsible Principal at the Firm

Consider suspending responsible principal in all supervisory capacities for a period of 10 business days to six months.

Where aggravating factors predominate, consider a longer suspension in any or all capacities (of up to two years) or, where the supervisor intended to conceal information or mislead, a bar in all supervisory capacities.

Firm

Where aggravating factors predominate, consider suspending firm with respect to any or all relevant activities or functions until the firm corrects the deficiency.

Firm or Responsible Principal Fine of $5,000 to $77,000.


73 TOC INDEX

MonetarySanction

Late Filing

Fine of $5,000 to $16,000. Consider imposing a fine on a per violation basis.


Late Filing

In egregious cases, consider suspending the firm from engaging in all municipal under writing activities for up to 30 business days. Also consider suspending the responsible individual in any or all capacities for up to 30 business days.

Failure to File

In egregious cases, consider suspending the firm from engaging in all municipal under writing activities for up to 30 business days and thereafter until the firm files accurate reports, as required by the rules. Also consider suspending the responsible individual in any or all capacities for up to 60 business days.

Filing False or Misleading Reports

Consider suspending the firm from engaging in all municipal underwriting activities for up to two years. Also consider suspending the responsible individual in any or all capacities for up to two years or barring the individual.

MSRB Rule G-37 Reporting—LateFiling;FailingtoFile;FilingFalseorMisleadingReportsMSRBRuleG-37



1. Whether the report is inaccurate, outdated or both.

2. Whether respondent is active in the municipal underwriting business and generally makes political contributions.

3. Whether respondent eventually filed report, albeit late.

4. Whether violation involved failing to report political contributions or failing to report participation in an underwriting.

5. Extent to which violative conduct deprived the investing public or other market participants of information regarding the issuer.

6. With respect to false or misleading reports, whether misconduct was intentional or reckless.


Failure to File

Fine of $5,000 to $31,000. Consider imposing a fine on a per violation basis.

Filing False or Misleading Reports

Fine of $10,000 to $155,000 per violation.

74 TOC INDEX


Regulation M Reports—LateFiling;FailingtoFile;FalseorMisleadingFilingFINRARules2010,5110,5190,6275and6540

MonetarySanction

Late Filing




Failure to File, or False or Misleading Filing




Late Filing; Failure to File; False or Misleading Filing

In egregious cases, consider suspending the responsible individual in any or all capacities for up to two years or barring the individual. Also consider suspending the firm with respect to any or all corporate financing and/or market- making activities for up to 15 days and thereafter until the firm accurately files the required reports.



1. Number of days that report is late.

2. Whether report contains a significant number of material inaccuracies.


75 TOC INDEX


Reportable Events Under FINRA Rule 4530—LateReporting;FailingtoReport;FilingFalse,InaccurateorMisleadingReportsFINRARules2010and4530



Late Reporting

1. Number and type of incidents not reported.

2. Whether events reported in late reports established a pattern of potential misconduct.


Late Reporting

In egregious cases, consider suspending the responsible principal in any or all capacities for up to two years or barring the responsible principal in all supervisory capacities.

Failure to Report or Filing False, Misleading or Inaccurate Reports

Consider suspending responsible principal in all supervisory capacities for 10 to 30 business days.

In egregious cases, consider suspending the responsible principal in any or all capacities for up to two years or barring the responsible principal in all supervisory capacities. Also consider suspending the firm with respect to any or all activities or functions until the firm corrects the deficiency.

MonetarySanction

Late Reporting

Fine of $5,000 to $77,000.

Failure to Report or Filing False, Misleading, or Inaccurate Reports

1. Whether events not reported or reported inaccurately would have established a pattern of potential misconduct.

2. In cases involving the failure to file or inaccurate filing of a quarterly report, the number and type of incidents not reported or reported inaccurately.


Failure to Report or Filing False, Misleading, or Inaccurate Reports1

Fine of $5,000 to $155,000.

76 TOC INDEX

1. Any automated submission submitted by a member firm more than 30 calendar days late generally is alleged to constitute a violation of Rule 8210. A firm with a history of more than four violations of Rules 8211 and 8213 may be alleged to have violated Rule 8210. The filing of incomplete or inaccurate automated submissions or the filing of manual submissions without prior exemptions may be alleged to constitute a violation of Rule 8210.

Request for Automated Submission of Trading Data—FailuretoRespondinaTimelyandAccurateMannerFINRARules2010,8211and82131



Suspension,BarorOtherSanctionsMonetarySanction

10 to 15 Days Late Fine of $100 per day.

16 to 30 Days Late Fine of $500 per day.


7777

X. Sales Practices

• Borrowing From or Lending to Customers – Failure to Comply With Rule Requirements

• Churning or Excessive Trading

• Communications With the Public—Late Filing; Failing to File; Failing to Comply With Rule Standards or Use of Misleading Communications

• Customer Account Transfer Contracts—Failure to Comply With Rule Requirements

• Day-Trading Accounts—Failure to Comply With Risk Disclosure Requirements; Failure Appropriatelyto Approve an Account for Day Trading; Failure to Preserve Required Day-Trading Records

• Discretion—Exercise of Discretion Without Customer’s Written Authority

• Guaranteeing a Customer Against Loss

• Institutional Sales Material—Failing to Establish and Maintain Written Procedures in Compliance With Rule Standards; Failing to Comply With Rule Standards Regarding Recordkeeping

• Fraud, Misrepresentations or Material Omissions of Fact

• Penny Stock Rules—Failure to Comply With Rule Requirements

• Pricing—Excessive Markups/Markdowns and Excessive Commissions

• Research Analysts and Research Reports—Failing to Comply With Rule Requirements Regarding (1) Relationships Between Research Department and Investment Banking Department; (2) Compensation for Research Analysts; and (3) Relationships Between Research Analysts and Subject Companies

• Suitability—Unsuitable Recommendations

• Telemarketing—Failing to Comply With Time-of-Day Restrictions and Do-Not-Call Lists; Failing to Establish and Maintain Procedures to Comply With FINRA Rule 2212(a)

• Trading Ahead of Research Reports

• Unauthorized Transactions and Failures to Execute Buy and/or Sell Orders

78 TOC INDEX


Consider suspending the respondent for a period of 10 business days to three months.


MonetarySanction

Fine of $2,500 to $77,000.



1. The purpose of the loan.

2. The number of loans at issue.

3. The number of customers involved in the respondent’s borrowing or lending arrangements.

4. Whether the loan was documented through a loan agreement or other written instrument.

5. The dollar amount, duration, interest rate, repayment schedule, and other terms of the loan and whether they are reasonable.

6. Whether the respondent made payments in conformance with the loan agreement and has repaid, or attempted to repay, the loan.

7. The age, financial condition, and financial sophistication of the customer.

8. Whether the respondent made any misrepresentations to the customer.

9. Whether the respondent misled his or her employer member firm about the existence of the loan or otherwise concealed the activity from the firm.

Borrowing From or Lending to Customers – FailuretoComplyWithRuleRequirementsFINRARules2010and3240

X.SalesPractices

79 TOC INDEX


Individual

Consider suspending an individual respondent in any or all capacities for a period of one month to two years.

Where aggravating factors predominate, consider a longer suspension (of up to two years) or a bar. Strongly consider barring an individual for reckless or intentional misconduct (e.g., churning).

Firm

Consider suspending a firm with respect to a limited set of activities or functions for up to three months.

Where aggravating factors predominate, consider suspending a firm with respect to any or all relevant activities or functions for longer than three months, or consider ordering expulsion of the firm.

1. This guideline also is appropriate for annuity and mutual fund-related violations, including switching.



MonetarySanction

Fine of $5,000 to $116,0003



Churning or Excessive Trading1


X.SalesPractices

80 TOC INDEX

MonetarySanction

Failure to File

Fine of $1,000 to $23,000.


Failure to File

In egregious cases, consider imposing, for a definite period, a “pre-use” filing requirement to obtain an FINRA Regulation staff “no objection” letter on proposed communications with the public.

Also consider suspending the responsible individual in any or all capacities for up to five business days.



Failure to File

1. Whether failure to file was inadvertent.

2. Whether communications with the public were circulated widely without having been filed with the Advertising Regulation Department.

3. Whether an individual respondent failed to notify a supervisor of a communication with the public.

1. Failing to file includes instances in which a respondent files with FINRA Regulation staff a communication with the public in response to a notice from FINRA Regulation staff that a necessary filing had not been made.

2. This guideline is appropriate for disciplinary actions that name as respondents member firms that have violated FINRA rules or associated persons who have circumvented the firm’s procedures or violated FINRA rules.


Communications With the Public—LateFiling;FailingtoFile1;FailingtoComplyWithRuleStandardsorUseofMisleadingCommunications2

FINRARules2010,2210et. seg.and2200

Late Filing

1. Whether late filing was inadvertent.

2. Whether communications with the public were circulated widely before having been filed with the Advertising Regulation Department.

3. Number of days late.

Late Filing

Fine of $1,000 to $16,000.

Late Filing

In egregious cases, consider imposing, for a definite period, a “pre-use” filing requirement to obtain an FINRA Regulation staff “no objection” letter on proposed communications with the public.

Also consider suspending the responsible individual in any or all capacities for up to 10 business days.

X.SalesPractices

81 TOC INDEX

MonetarySanction

Failure to Comply/Misleading

Failure to Comply with Rule Standards or Inadvertent Use of Misleading Communications

Fine of $1,000 to $31,000.


Failure to Comply/Misleading

Failure to Comply with Rule Standards

In cases involving inadvertent use of misleading communications, consider suspending firm with respect to any or all activities or functions for up to six months and thereafter imposing, for a definite period, a “pre-use” filing requirement to obtain a FINRA Regulation staff “no objection” letter on proposed communications with the public.

In egregious cases, consider suspending the firm with respect to any or all activities or functions for up to one year and thereafter imposing, for a definite period, a “pre-use” filing requirement to obtain FINRA Regulation staff “no objection” letter on proposed communications with the public. Also consider suspending the responsible person in any or all capacities for up to 60 days.

Communications With the Public—LateFiling;FailingtoFile;FailingtoComplyWithRuleStandardsorUseofMisleadingCommunications—continuedFINRARules2010,2210et. seq.,and2220



Failure to Comply with Rule Standards/ Misleading

1. Whether violative communications with the public were circulated widely.

X.SalesPractices

82 TOC INDEX

MonetarySanction

Intentional or Reckless Use of Misleading Communications

Fine of $10,000 to $155,000.


Use of Misleading Communications with the Public

In cases involving intentional or reckless use of misleading communications with the public, consider suspending the firm with respect to any or all activities or functions for up to two years.

Also consider suspending the responsible person in any or all capacities for up to two years.1

In cases involving numerous acts of intentional or reckless misconduct over an extended period of time, consider suspending the firm with respect to any or all activities or functions for up to two years, suspending the responsible person in any or all capacities for up to two years, expelling the firm, and/or barring the responsible individual.



1. If an Adjudicator is considering suspending a firm’s ability to execute transactions in the securities referenced in the violative communications, the Adjudicator should consider the potential ramifications to public investors of such a suspension.

Communications With the Public—LateFiling;FailingtoFile;FailingtoComplyWithRuleStandardsorUseofMisleadingCommunications—continuedFINRARules2010,2210et. seq.,and2220

X.SalesPractices

83 TOC INDEX

Customer Account Transfer Contracts—FailuretoComplyWithRuleRequirementsFINRARule118701

MonetarySanction

Fine of $1,000 to $16,000.

In egregious cases, consider a higher fine of up to $77,000.


Individual

Consider suspending the responsible individual in any or all capacities for up to 30 business days. In egregious cases, consider a lengthier suspension of up to two years.

Firm

In egregious cases, consider suspending the firm with respect to any or all activities or functions for a period of up to two years.



1. Consider the nature of the violation—consider the respondent’s transfer pattern, the number of days late, and whether respondent was late with delivery or validation.

1 This guideline also is appropriate for violations of MSRB G-26.

X.SalesPractices

84 TOC INDEX

MonetarySanction

Failure to Comply with Risk Disclosure Requirements

Fine of $5,000 to $155,000.



Consider suspending the responsible individual in any or all capacities for a period of 10 business days to one year.

In egregious cases, particularly cases involving numerous customers, consider suspending for a longer period (of up to two years) or barring the responsible individual and suspending the firm with respect to any or all activities or functions for a period of up to two years.




1. Whether the firm failed to provide customer(s) with a risk disclosure statement.

2. Whether the firm provided its customer(s) with an inadequate risk disclosure statement, or furnished the risk disclosure statement to its customer(s) in an untimely manner or a manner not designed to provide actual notice.

3. Whether the firm failed to obtain FINRA approval of an alternative disclosure statement or failed timely to seek FINRA approval.

4. In all cases, consider the nature, quality, and timing of the risk disclosure actually provided to the customer(s).

5. Whether day trading was appropriate for the affected customer(s).

6. The number of affected customers.

Day-Trading Accounts—FailuretoComplyWithRiskDisclosureRequirements;FailureAppropriatelytoApproveanAccountforDayTrading;FailuretoPreserveRequiredDay-TradingRecordsFINRARules2130and2270

X.SalesPractices

85 TOC INDEX


Failure Appropriately to Approve an Account for Day Trading

Suspend responsible individual in any or all capacities for a period of 10 business days to one year. Consider suspending member firm with respect to any or all activities or functions for up to one year.

In egregious cases, particularly cases involving numerous customers, consider suspending the responsible individual for a longer period (up to two years) or barring the individual.

Also consider suspending the member firm for a longer period (of up to two years).




1. Whether the firm permitted the customer(s) to engage in a day-trading strategy without the approval required by the rule.

2. Whether the firm failed to conduct a meaningful review before approving the customer account(s) for a day-trading strategy.

3. Whether the firm’s approval of the customer account(s) for a day-trading strategy was inappropriate based on the facts it knew or should have known.

4. The timeliness of the approval of the customer account(s) for a day-trading strategy.

5. Whether engaging in a day-trading strategy was appropriate for the affected customer(s).

6. The number of affected customers.


Day-Trading Accounts—FailuretoComplyWithRiskDisclosureRequirements;FailureAppropriatelytoApproveanAccountForDayTrading;FailuretoPreserveRequiredDay-TradingRecords—continuedFINRARules2130and2270

X.SalesPractices

MonetarySanction


Fine of $5,000 to $155,000.1

86 TOC INDEX

Day-Trading Accounts—FailuretoComplyWithRiskDisclosureRequirements;FailureAppropriatelytoApproveanAccountForDayTrading;FailuretoPreserveRequiredDay-TradingRecords—continuedFINRARules2130and2270



Failure to Preserve Required Day-Trading Records

1. Whether the firm failed adequately to record its approval of the customer account(s) for day trading.

2. Whether the firm failed adequately to preserve the written customer agreement(s) to refrain from engaging in a day-trading strategy.

3. Whether the failure enabled problematic practices to occur and/or to escape detection.



In egregious cases, consider suspending the responsible individual in any or all capacities for up to 30 business days and suspending the firm in any or all activities or functions for up to 15 business days.

MonetarySanction


Fine of $1,000 to $39,000.

X.SalesPractices

87 TOC INDEX



1. Whether customer’s grant of discretion was express or implied.

2. Whether firm’s policies or procedures prohibited discretionary trading.

3. Whether the firm prohibited the respondent from exercising discretion in customer accounts.

4. Whether the respondent’s exercise of discretion went beyond time and price discretion.


Where aggravating factors predominate, suspend an individual respondent in any or all capacities for at least 10 to 30 business days.

MonetarySanction

Fine of $2,500 to $16,000.2

Discretion—ExerciseofDiscretionWithoutCustomer’sWrittenAuthorityFINRARules2010andNASDRule25101

1. This guideline also is appropriate for violations of MSRB Rules G-8(a)(xi)(I) and G-17.


X.SalesPractices

88 TOC INDEX



Guaranteeing a Customer Against LossFINRARules2010and21501

MonetarySanction

Fine of $2,500 to $39,000.2


Consider suspending individual respondent in any or all capacities for up to 30 business days. In egregious cases, consider a longer suspension (of up to two years) or a bar.

Consider suspending member firm with respect to any or all activities or functions for up to 30 business days. In egregious cases, consider a longer suspension (of up to two years) or expulsion.



1. Purpose and timing of the guarantee.

2. Whether respondent received a financial benefit from the guaranteed transactions.

X.SalesPractices

89 TOC INDEX

MonetarySanction

Failure to Establish and Maintain Written Procedures in Compliance with Rule 2210(b)

Fine of $5,000 to $31,000.



In egregious cases, consider suspending the responsible individual(s) in any or all capacities for up to one year. In egregious cases, also consider imposing a pre-use filing requirement for institutional sales material and suspending the firm with respect to any or all activities or functions for up to 30 business days or until the firm’s written procedures are amended to conform to the requirements of Rule 2211(b).

Failure to Comply with Record-Keeping Requirements of Rule 2210(b)

In egregious cases, consider suspending the responsible individual for up to two years and consider suspending the firm in any or all activities or functions for up to 30 days.

Institutional Communications—FailingtoEstablishandMaintainWrittenProceduresinComplianceWithRuleStandards;FailingtoComplyWithRuleStandardsRegardingRecordkeepingFINRARule2210


See Principal Considerations In Introductory Section.


1. Whether deficiencies enabled violations to occur and escape detection.

2. Nature, extent, and character of underlying misconduct, if any.


1. Nature and materiality of inaccurate or missing information.

X.SalesPractices


Fine of $1,000 to $31,000. In egregious cases, consider a higher fine.

90 TOC INDEX




Negligent Misconduct3

Suspend individual in any or all capacities for 31 calendar days to two years. Consider suspending a firm with respect to a limited set of activities for up to 90 days.


Strongly consider barring an individual. Where mitigating factors predominate, however, consider suspending an individual in any or all capacities for a period of six months to two years. Consider applicable Principal Considerations in determining the duration of a suspension or whether to impose a bar.

Consider suspending a firm with respect to any or all activities for up to two years. Where aggravating factors predominate, strongly consider expelling the firm.

MonetarySanction2


Fine of $2,500 to $77,000.

Fraud, Misrepresentations or Material Omissions of FactFINRARules2010and20201

1. This guideline also is appropriate for violations of Sections 10(b) and 15(c)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the applicable rules and regulations thereunder, and MSRB Rules G-17 and G-47.

2. In cases involving misrepresentations and/or omissions as to two or more customers, the Adjudicator may impose a set fine amount per investor rather than in the aggregate. As set forth in General Principle No. 6, Adjudicators may also order disgorgement.

3. This guideline should be applied in cases alleging only a violation of FINRA Rule 2010 or MSRB Rule G-17 if the cause of action in the complaint is based on negligent misrepresentations or negligent material omissions of fact.


Fine of $10,000 to $155,000.

X.SalesPractices

91 TOC INDEX





Consider suspending the firm with respect to any or all activities or functions and/or suspending the responsible individual in any or all capacities for up to two years.

Willful Misconduct

Consider suspending the firm with respect to any or all activities or functions and/or suspending the responsible individual in any or all capacities for up to two years.

In egregious cases, bar the responsible individual and/or expel the firm.

MonetarySanction1


Fine of $5,000 to $155,000.

Penny Stock Rules—FailuretoComplyWithRuleRequirementsFINRARule2010andSECRules15g-1through15g-9


X.SalesPractices

Willful Misconduct

Fine of the greater of $155,000 or $5,000 per violative transaction.

For egregious misconduct, require firm to offer rescission of violative trades to each customer.

92 TOC INDEX



1. Whether respondent dominated and controlled the market in the subject security or securities.

2. Whether respondent (registered representative) had discretion as to the amount of markups, markdowns or commissions on each trade.

3. The number of harmed customers and the quantified customer harm.



Consider suspending individual respondent in any or all capacities for a period of 10 to 30 business days and requiring demonstrated corrective action with respect to the firm’s markup/markdown policy or commission policy.


Consider suspending individual respondent in any or all capacities, or the firm with respect to any or all relevant activities or functions, for a period of 10 business days to two years.


MonetarySanction2

First Action3

Fine of $5,000 to $77,000 plus (if restitution is not ordered) the gross amount of the excessive markups, markdowns, or commissions.

Second Action


Subsequent Actions4


Pricing—ExcessiveMarkups/MarkdownsandExcessiveCommissionsFINRARule2121,2121.01,2121.02,and20101


2. In cases in which the violations: (1) involve a pattern or patterns of misconduct; (2) can be quantified by number or percentage; or (3) can be compared to the standard maintained by industry peers, Adjudicators may consider deviating from the fine structure recommended in this guideline. Imposition of monetary sanctions greater than those recommended in this guideline may be particularly appropriate in cases involving violations that occurred during two or more examination or review periods or violations that occurred over an extended period of time. Similarly, in cases in which the respondent acted intentionally or recklessly, and in cases in which the respondent’s compliance rate is significantly lower than that of its peers, Adjudicators may impose a monetary sanction in excess of the recommended range. In cases involving violations that arose from intentional or reckless misconduct, Adjudicators may consider imposing a set fine amount per violation rather than in the aggregate.



X.SalesPractices

93 TOC INDEX

Research Analysts and Research Reports—FailingtoComplyWithRuleRequirementsRegarding(1)RelationshipsBetweenResearchDepartmentandInvestmentBankingDepartment;(2)CompensationforResearchAnalysts;and(3)RelationshipsBetweenResearchAnalystsandSubjectCompanies

FINRARule2241

MonetarySanction


Fine of $5,000 to $155,000.

Intentional/Reckless Misconduct

Fine of $10,000 to $310,000. In egregious cases, consider a larger fine.


See Principal Considerations in Introductory Section.

1. Whether misconduct resulted from negligence or intentional/reckless behavior.

2. Whether misconduct also resulted in publication of research reports that omitted material information or contained misleading information.

3. Whether evidence suggested systemic problems or widespread abuse in the firm.

X.SalesPractices



Consider suspending the responsible individual(s) in any or all capacities for up to 30 business days.


Responsible Individual – Suspend responsible individual(s) in any or all capacities for a period of 60 business days to two years. In egregious cases, suspend individual(s) for a longer period or bar individual(s).

Firm – Consider suspending firm’s research activities for a period of one month to two years. Consider requiring firm to retain an independent consultant to review and make recommendations regarding the adequacy of the firm’s supervisory procedures regarding research activities. In cases involving violative relationships between a firm’s research department and investment banking department, consider suspending the firm’s investment banking activities for a period of three months to two years.

In egregious cases, suspend firm in any or all activities or functions for up to two years or expel the firm.

94 TOC INDEX

Research Analysts and Research Reports—FailingtoComplyWithRuleRequirementsRegarding(1)RestrictionsonPublishingResearchReportsandPublicAppearancesofResearchAnalysts;(2)RestrictionsonPersonalTradingofResearchAnalysts;and(3)DisclosureRequirementsforResearchReportsandPublicAppearancesofResearchAnalysts1

FINRARule2241

X.SalesPractices


MonetarySanction

Failure to Comply With Restrictions on Personal Trading of Research Analysts (Rule 2241(b))

Fine of $5,000 to $77,000.2 In egregious cases, consider a higher fine.


For All Violations


1. Whether misconduct resulted from negligence or intentional/reckless behavior.

2. Whether misconduct also resulted in publication of research reports that omitted material information or contained misleading information.

3. Whether evidence suggested systemic problems or widespread abuse in the firm.


Failure to Comply With Restrictions on Personal Trading of Research Analysts (Rule 2241(b))

Suspend individual in any or all capacities for a period of 10 business days to one year. In egregious cases, consider a longer suspension or a bar.

95 TOC INDEX

MonetarySanction

Failure to Comply With Restrictions on Publishing Research Reports, Restrictions on Public Appearances of Research Analysts and Disclosure Requirements for Research Reports and Public Appearances (Rule 2241 (c) and (d)(f))


Fine of $5,000 to $155,000.


Fine of $10,000 to $310,000. In egregious cases, consider a larger fine.


Failure to Comply With Restrictions on Publishing Research Reports, Restrictions on Public Appearances of Research Analysts and Disclosure Requirements for Research Reports and Public Appearances (Rule 2241 (c) and (d)(f))


Responsible Individual – Consider suspending responsible individual(s) in any or all capacities for up to 60 business days.


Responsible Individual – Suspend responsible individual(s) in any or all capacities for a period of 60 business days to two years. In egregious cases, suspend individual(s) for a longer period or bar individual(s).

Firm – Consider suspending firm’s research activities for a period of one month to two years. Consider requiring firm to retain an independent consultant to review and make recommendations regarding the adequacy of the firm’s supervisory procedures regarding research activities. Consider requiring firm, for a period of six months to two years, to certify monthly that a general securities principal has conducted a pre-distribution review of all research reports.

In egregious cases, suspend firm in any or all activities or functions for up to two years or expel the firm.


Research Analysts and Research Reports—FailingtoComplyWithRuleRequirementsRegarding(1)RestrictionsonPublishingResearchReportsandPublicAppearancesofResearchAnalysts;(2)RestrictionsonPersonalTradingofResearchAnalysts;and(3)DisclosureRequirementsforResearchReportsandPublicAppearancesofResearchAnalysts1

FINRARule2241

X.SalesPractices

96 TOC INDEX




Suspend individual respondent in any or all capacities for a period of 10 business days to two years. Where aggravating factors predominate, strongly consider a bar for an individual respondent.

Consider suspending a firm with respect to a limited set of activities for up to 90 days. In egregious cases, strongly consider suspending a firm for any or all activities for longer than 90 days or ordering expulsion.

MonetarySanction

Fine of $2,500 to $116,000.2

Suitability—UnsuitableRecommendationsFINRARule21111


2. This guideline also is appropriate for violations of MSRB Rule G-19 and FINRA Rule 2114.

X.SalesPractices

97 TOC INDEX


See Principal Considerations In Introductory Section.

Failure to Comply with Time-of-Day Restrictions or Do-Not-Call Lists

1. Whether violations were widespread within the firm.

2. Number of calls that violated restrictions.

3. Whether there are patterns of abuses relating to when telephone calls are placed or to the repeated contacting of persons who have previously requested to be placed on a do-not-call list.

4. Whether firm made reasonable efforts to establish an effective call-blocking system for any members of the public requesting to be placed on a do-not-call list.



Consider suspending responsible individual for up to 30 business days. In egregious cases, consider suspending the responsible individual in any or all capacities for up to two years. Also, consider suspending the firm with respect to any or all activities or functions, including telemarketing activities, for up to one year.

MonetarySanction


Fine of $5,000 to $39,000.

Telemarketing—FailingtoComplyWithTime-of-DayRestrictionsandDo-Not-CallLists;FailingtoEstablishandMaintainProcedurestoComplyWithFINRARule3230(a)FINRARule3230

X.SalesPractices

98 TOC INDEX

Telemarketing—FailingtoComplyWithTime-of-DayRestrictionsandDo-Not-CallLists;FailingtoEstablishandMaintainProcedurestoComplyWithRule3230(a)—continuedFINRARule3230


Failure to Establish and Maintain Procedures to Comply With Rule 2212(a)

1. Nature and extent of underlying misconduct that resulted from the deficient procedures, if any.

2. Whether firm made reasonable efforts to establish an effective call-blocking system for any members of the public requesting to be placed on a do-not-call list.

3. Whether there are patterns of abuses relating to when telephone calls are placed or to the repeated contacting of persons who have previously requested to be placed on a do-not-call list.


Failure to Establish and Maintain Procedures to Comply with Rule 3230(a)

Consider suspending responsible individual in any or all capacities for up to 30 business days. Consider limiting activities of appropriate branch office or department for up to 30 business days.

In egregious cases, consider suspending the responsible individual for up to two years. In egregious cases, also consider limiting activities of appropriate branch office or department for more than 30 days or suspending the firm in any or all activities or functions, including telemarketing activities, for up to one year.

MonetarySanction

Failure to Establish and Maintain Procedures to Comply with Rule 3230(a)

Fine of $5,000 to $77,000. In egregious cases, consider a higher fine.

X.SalesPractices

99 TOC INDEX



1. Whether the respondent member firm had developed procedures to prevent the trading department from utilizing advance knowledge of the content and issuance of research reports in making trading decisions.


Firm

Consider suspending the firm with respect to any or all activities or functions and/or suspending the responsible individual for up to two years.

In egregious cases, consider expelling the firm

and/or barring the responsible individual.

Individual

Consider suspending the individual respondent in any or all capacities for up to two years.

In egregious cases, consider barring the individual.

MonetarySanction

Fine of $5,000 to $155,000.1

Trading Ahead of Research ReportsFINRARules2010and5280


X.SalesPractices

TOC INDEX100

MonetarySanction

Fine of $5,000 to $116,000.2


Individual

For failures to execute orders, consider suspending individual respondent in any or all capacities for a period of 10 business days to one year.

For unauthorized transactions, consider suspending an individual respondent for a period of one month to two years. Where aggravating factors predominate, strongly consider barring an individual respondent.

Firm

Also consider suspending respondent member firm with respect to any or all relevant activities or functions for up to two years.



1. Whether the respondent reasonably misunderstood his or her authority or the terms of the customer’s orders.

2. Whether the respondent acted in bad faith – i.e., whether the respondent knew he or she was acting without authorization or was acting as a result of a reasonable misunderstanding.

3. The number of customers affected and the magnitude of the customers’ losses, if any.

4. The number and dollar value of unauthorized transactions or failures to execute buy or sell orders.

5. Whether the respondent attempted to conceal the trading or to evade regulatory investigative efforts.

6. Whether the unauthorized transactions were made in furtherance of or in connection with another violation (e.g., conversion, improper use of funds, churning, etc.).



Unauthorized Transactions and Failures to Execute Buy or Sell OrdersFINRARule2111and20101

X.SalesPractices

101

XI. Supervision

• Disqualified Persons—Failure to Discharge Supervisory Obligations

• Supervision—Failure to Comply With Taping Rule Requirements

• Supervision—Failure to Supervise

• Supervision—Systemic Supervisory Failures

• Supervisory Procedures—Deficient Written Supervisory Procedures

102 TOC INDEX

Disqualified Persons—FailuretoDischargeSupervisoryObligationsFINRARules2010and3110

MonetarySanction

Fine of $10,000 to $155,000.


Consider suspending responsible principal in any or all capacities for up to one year.

If disqualified person is involved in egregious misconduct about which the supervisor knew or should have known, consider a longer suspension (of up to two years) or a bar.



1. Extent of disqualified person’s misconduct and the existence of “red flag” warnings.

2. Whether disqualification resulted from financial and/or securities misconduct.

XI.Supervision

103 TOC INDEX

MonetarySanction

Failure to Establish, Maintain or Enforce Tape Recording Procedures

Fine of $10,000 to $116,000.


Failure to Establish, Maintain or Enforce Tape Recording Procedures

Consider suspending responsible individual in all principal capacities for 30 business days and limiting the activities of the affected branch office for up to 30 business days. Also consider requiring the firm or affected branch office to comply with the tape recording and reporting requirements of FINRA Rule 3170 for an additional period equal to the time specified in Rule 3170.

In egregious cases, consider suspending the responsible individual for a longer period in all principal capacities, suspending the responsible individual in all capacities or barring the responsible individual, and limiting the activities of the branch office for a longer period or suspending the firm with respect to any or all activities or functions for a period of up to 30 business days. Also consider requiring the firm or affected branch office to comply with the tape recording and reporting require ments of FINRA Rule 3170 for an additional period equal to the time specified in Rule 3170.

In cases involving a firm’s steadfast refusal to implement, maintain or enforce tape recording procedures, consider barring the responsible individual and suspending the firm in all capacities for a longer period (of up to two years) or expelling the firm.

Supervision—FailuretoComplyWithTapingRuleRequirementsFINRARules2010and3170



1. Whether respondents were responsible for an unjustified delay in complying with the requirements of the rule.

2. The quality of the taping system that the firm installed.

3. The degree of the firm’s implementation of follow-up and supervisory procedures.

In cases in which the failure to comply with tape recording requirements enabled problematic trading practices to occur, consider nature and extent of the underlying problematic conduct and the potential for resulting harm to the public or to a member firm.

4. In cases involving a failure to report to FINRA or the filing of an inaccurate, untimely or incomplete report, consider whether firm’s misconduct concealed from FINRA or other regulatory authorities potential wrongdoing.

XI.Supervision

104 TOC INDEX


Failure Timely to Implement Procedures

Consider requiring the firm or affected branch office to comply with the requirements of FINRA Rule 3170 for an additional period of time equal to the period during which the firm delayed implementation of taping procedures.

In egregious cases, consider limiting the activities of the affected branch office for up to 30 business days or suspending the firm with respect to any or all activities or functions for a period of up to 30 business days. Also consider suspending the responsible individual in any or all capacities for up to two years or barring the responsible individual. Also consider requiring the firm or affected branch office to comply with the requirements of FINRA Rule 3170 for an additional period of time equal at least to the period during which the firm delayed implementation of taping procedures.

Failure to Report to the FINRA or Filing of an Inaccurate, Untimely or Incomplete Report

In egregious cases, consider suspending the responsible individual in any or all principal capacities for up to 30 business days and limiting the activities of the affected branch office for up to 30 business days. In cases involving the fabrication of a report, consider suspending the responsible individual for a longer period in all principal capacities, suspending the responsible individual in all capacities or barring the responsible individual, and suspending the firm for a lengthier period or expelling the firm.

Supervision—FailuretoComplyWithTapingRuleRequirements—continuedFINRARules2010and3170



MonetarySanction

Failure Timely to Implement Procedures

Fine of $5,000 to $77,000.

Failure to Report to FINRA or Filing of an Inaccurate, Untimely or Incomplete Report

Fine of $1,000 to $39,000.

XI.Supervision

105 TOC INDEX



Supervision—FailuretoSuperviseFINRARules2010and31101

MonetarySanction

Fine of $5,000 to $77,000.2

Consider independent (rather than joint and several) monetary sanctions for firm and responsible individual(s).


Consider suspending responsible individual in all supervisory capacities for up to 30 business days. Consider limiting activities of appropriate branch office or department for up to 30 business days.

In egregious cases, consider limiting activities of the branch office or department for a longer period or suspending the firm with respect to any or all activities or functions for up to 30 business days. Also consider suspending the responsible individual in any or all capacities for up to two years or barring the responsible individual.



1. Whether respondent ignored “red flag” warnings that should have resulted in additional supervisory scrutiny. Consider whether individuals responsible for underlying misconduct attempted to conceal misconduct from respondent.

2. Nature, extent, size and character of the underlying misconduct.

3. Quality and degree of supervisor’s implementation of the firm’s supervisory procedures and controls.

XI.Supervision

106 TOC INDEX

Supervision—SystemicSupervisoryFailuresFINRARules3110and20101

MonetarySanction

Fine of $10,000 to $77,000 for the responsible individual(s).

Fine of $10,000 to $310,000 for the firm.


Adjudicators should consider ordering restitution or disgorgement in appropriate cases.


Individual

Where the deficiency persists, consider suspending any responsible individual(s) in any or all capacities for a period of 10 business days to six months.

Where aggravating factors predominate, consider suspending the responsible individual(s) in any or all capacities for a period of 10 business days to two years, or consider barring the responsible individual(s).



1. Whether the deficiencies allowed violative conduct to occur or to escape detection.

2. Whether the firm or individual failed to timely correct or address deficiencies once identified, failed to respond reasonably to prior warnings from FINRA or another regulator, or failed to respond reasonably to other “red flag” warnings.

3. Whether the firm appropriately allocated its resources to prevent or detect the supervisory failure, taking into account the potential impact on customers or markets.

4. The number and type of customers, investors or market participants affected by the deficiencies.

5. The number and dollar value of the transactions not adequately supervised as a result of the deficiencies.

AdjudicatorsshouldusethisGuidelinewhenasupervisoryfailureissignificantandiswidespreadoroccursoveranextendedperiodoftime.Whilesystemicsupervisoryfailurestypicallyinvolvefailurestoimplementorusesupervisoryproceduresthatexist,systemicsupervisoryfailuresalsomayinvolvesupervisorysystemsthathavebothineffectivelydesignedproceduresandproceduresthatarenotimplemented.


XI.Supervision

107 TOC INDEX


6. The nature, extent, size, character, and complexity of the activities or functions not adequately supervised as a result of the deficiencies.

7. The extent to which the deficiencies affected market integrity, market transparency, the accuracy of regulatory reports, or the dissemination of trade or other regulatory information.

8. The quality of controls or procedures available to the supervisors and the degree to which the supervisors implemented them.


Firm

Where aggravating factors predominate, consider a suspension of the firm with respect to any or all relevant activities or functions for a period of 10 business days to two years, or consider expulsion of the firm.

Consider imposing undertakings, ordering the firm to revise its supervisory systems and procedures, or ordering the firm to engage an independent consultant to recommend changes to the firm’s supervisory systems and procedures.

MonetarySanction

Supervision—SystemicSupervisoryFailures—continuedFINRARules3110and20101

108 TOC INDEX


Supervisory Procedures—DeficientWrittenSupervisoryProceduresFINRARules2010and31101

MonetarySanction

Fine of $1,000 to $39,000.


In egregious cases, consider suspending the responsible individual(s) in any or all capacities for up to one year. Also consider suspending the firm with respect to any or all relevant activities or functions for up to 30 business days and thereafter until the supervisory procedures are amended to conform to rule requirements.



1. Whether deficiencies allowed violative conduct to occur or to escape detection.

2. Whether the deficiencies made it difficult to determine the individual or individuals responsible for specific areas of supervision or compliance.

XI.Supervision

109

Index

110

Index (Pleaseclickonthepagenumbersbelow.)

Anti-Intimidation/Coordination—Failure to Comply With Rule Requirements 48

ArbitrationAward—Failure to Honor or Failure to Honor in a Timely Manner 18

BackingAway 49

BestExecution—Failure to Comply With Requirements for Best Execution 50

BorrowingFromorLendingtoCustomers—Failure to Comply With Rule Requirements 78

BranchOffices—Failure to Register 39

Cheating,UsinganImpostor,orPossessingUnauthorizedMaterialsinQualificationsExaminationsorintheRegulatoryElementofContinuingEducation 40

ChurningorExcessiveTrading 79

CommunicationsWiththePublic—Late Filing; Failing to File; Failing to Comply With Rule Standards or Use of Misleading Communications 80

ConfidentialityAgreements—Settling With Customer in Exchange for Customer Agreement Not to Cooperate With Regulatory Authorities 32

ConsolidatedAuditTrailSystem(CAT)—Late Reporting; Failing to Report; False, Inaccurate or Misleading Reporting; and Clock Synchronization Failure 52

ContinuingEducation(FirmElement)—Failure to Comply With Rule Requirements 41

ContinuingEducation(RegulatoryElement)—Failure to Comply With Rule Requirements 42

ConversionorImproperUseofFundsorSecurities 36

CorporateFinancingRule—Failure to Comply With Rule Requirements 20

CustomerAccountTransferContracts—Failure to Comply With Rule Requirements 83

111


CustomerConfirmations—Failure to Comply With Rule Requirements 26

CustomerProtectionRule—Failure to Comply With Rule Requirements 27

Day-TradingAccounts—Failure to Comply With Risk Disclosure Requirements; Failure Appropriately to Approve an Account for Day Trading; Failure to Preserve Required Day-Trading Records 84

Discretion—Exercise of Discretion Without Customer’s Written Authority 87

DisqualifiedPersonAssociatingWithFirmPriortoApproval;FirmAllowingDisqualifiedPersontoAssociatePriortoApproval 43

DisqualifiedPersons—Failure to Discharge Supervisory Obligations 102

ECNDisplayRule—Failure to Comply With Rule Requirements 53

EngaginginProhibitedMunicipalSecuritiesBusiness 21

EscrowViolations—Prohibited Representations in Contingency Offerings; Transmission or Maintenance of Customer Funds in Underwritings 22

ExtendedHoursTradingRiskDisclosure—Failure to Comply With Rule Requirements 47

FailingtoEstablishandMaintainProcedurestoComplyWithRule3230(a) 97

FailuretoDisplayMinimumSizeinNASDAQSecurities,CQSSecuritiesandOTCBulletinBoardSecurities 54

FailuretoRespond,FailuretoRespondTruthfullyorinaTimelyManner,orProvidingaPartialbutIncompleteResponsetoRequestsMadePursuanttoFINRARule8210 33

FilingofFalse,MisleadingorInaccurateFormsorAmendments 72

FOCUSReports—Late Filing; Failing to File; Filing False or Misleading Reports 71

Forgery,UnauthorizedUseofSignaturesorFalsificationofRecords 37

112


FormsU4/U5—Late Filing of Forms or Amendments; Failing to File Forms or Amendments; Filing of False, Misleading or Inaccurate Forms or Amendments 72

Fraud,MisrepresentationsorMaterialOmissionsofFact 90

GuaranteeingaCustomerAgainstLoss 88

InstitutionalCommunications—Failing to Establish and Maintain Written Procedures in Compliance With Rule Standards; Failing to Comply With Rule Standards Regarding Recordkeeping 89

LimitOrderDisplayRule—Failure to Comply With Rule Requirements 55

LimitOrderProtectionRule—Failure to Comply With Rule Requirements 56

Locked/CrossedMarket—Failure to Comply With Rule Requirements 57

MarkingtheCloseorOpen 58

MemberAgreementViolations 44

MisleadingReporting;andClockSynchronizationFailure 61

MSRBRuleG-37Reporting—Late Filing; Failing to File; Filing False or Misleading Reports 73

NetCapitalViolations 28

OptionsExerciseandPositionsLimits—Failure to Comply With Rule Requirements 59

OptionsPositionsReporting—Late Reporting and Failing to Report 60

OrderAuditTrailSystem(OATS)—Late Reporting; Failing to Report; False, Inaccurate or Misleading Reporting; and Clock Synchronization Failure 61

OutsideBusinessActivities—Failure to Comply With Rule Requirements 13

PassiveMarketMakingViolations 62

113


PennyStockRules—Failure to Comply With Rule Requirements 91

Pricing—Excessive Markups/Markdowns and Excessive Commissions 92

ProhibitiononTransactions,PublicationofQuotationsorPublicationofIndicationsofInterestDuringaTradingHalt 63

RecordkeepingViolations 29

RegistrationViolations 45

RegulationMReports—Late Filing; Failing to File; False or Misleading Filing 74

RegulationTandMarginRequirements—Violations of Regulation T or FINRA Margin Requirements 30

ReportableEventsUnderFINRARule4530—Late Reporting; Failing to Report; Filing False, Inaccurate or Misleading Reports 75

ReportsofExecutionQualityandOrderRouting 64

RequestforAutomatedSubmissionofTradingData—Failure to Respond in a Timely and Accurate Manner 76

ResearchAnalystsandResearchReports—Failing to Comply With Rule Requirements Regarding

(1) Relationships Between Research Department and Investment Banking Department;

(2) Compensation for Research Analysts; and

(3) Relationships Between Research Analysts and Subject Companies 93

ResearchAnalystsandResearchReports—Failing to Comply With Rule Requirements Regarding

(1) Restrictions on Publishing Research Reports and Public Appearances of Research Analysts;

(2) Restrictions on Personal Trading of Research Analysts; and

(3) Disclosure Requirements for Research Reports and Public Appearances of Research Analysts 94


RestrictionsonthePurchaseandSaleofInitialEquityPublicOfferingsViolations 23

SellingAway(PrivateSecuritiesTransactions) 14

SettlingCustomerComplaintsAwayFromtheFirm 34

ShortInterestReporting 65

ShortSaleViolations 66

Suitability—Unsuitable Recommendations 96

Supervision—Failure to Comply With Taping Rule Requirements 103

Supervision—Failure to Supervise 105

Supervision—Systemic Supervisory Failures 106

SupervisoryProcedures—Deficient Written Supervisory Procedures 108

Telemarketing—Failing to Comply With Time-of-Day Restrictions and Do-Not-Call Lists; Failing to Establish and Maintain Procedures to Comply With FINRA Rule 3230(a) 97

TradeReporting—Late Reporting; Failing to Report; False, Inaccurate or Misleading Reporting 69

TradeReportingandComplianceEngine(TRACE)—Late Reporting; Failing to Report; False, Inaccurate or Incomplete Reporting 67

TradingAheadofResearchReports 99

TransactionsfororbyAssociatedPersons—Failure to Comply With Rule Requirements 16

UnauthorizedTransactionsandFailurestoExecuteBuyorSellOrders 100

UnregisteredSecurities—Salesof 24

114

Investor protection. Market integrity.

1735KStreet,NWWashington,DC20006-1506www.finra.org

©2021FINRA.Allrightsreserved.FINRAandothertrademarksoftheFinancialIndustryRegulatoryAuthority,Inc.maynotbeusedwithoutpermission.

21_0198.1–10/21

Documents

October 2021 Sanction Guidelines